ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the causes and degree of interobserver variability in esophageal pH monitoring for the diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux. METHODS: This retrospective study included all children (n = 72) who underwent pH monitoring during 1 year at Maxima Medical Centre in Veldhoven, the Netherlands. RESULTS: An interobserver variability of 18% was found. Variability was caused by differences in opinion about the duration of registration, doubts about probe position, artifacts and drift of baseline pH. CONCLUSIONS: Most of these problems can be eliminated by posttest calibration and assessment of the pH electrode position. However, a clear definition of monitoring artifacts is lacking. This study shows that mutual agreement in the interpretation of pH studies was fair (kappa coefficient of 0.70).
Subject(s)
Esophageal pH Monitoring/statistics & numerical data , Gastroesophageal Reflux/diagnosis , Calibration/standards , Electrodes, Implanted/standards , Female , Humans , Infant , Male , Observer Variation , Retrospective StudiesABSTRACT
OBJETIVO: O monitoramento do pH esofágico é considerado o método mais confiável para diagnosticar o refluxo gastroesofágico. No entanto, a interpretação do mesmo estudo de pH pode diferir entre observadores. Neste estudo, investigamos as causas e o grau de variabilidade entre observadores. MÉTODOS: Este estudo retrospectivo incluiu todas as crianças (n = 72) que realizaram monitoramento de pH durante 1 ano no Maxima Medical Centre, em Veldhoven, Holanda. RESULTADOS: Foi encontrada uma variabilidade de 18 por cento entre observadores. A variabilidade foi causada por diferenças de opinião sobre a duração do registro, dúvidas sobre a posição da sonda, artefatos e flutuação do pH de base. CONCLUSÕES: A maioria desses problemas pode ser eliminada por avaliação da posição do eletrodo de pH e calibração pós-teste. No entanto, ainda falta uma definição clara dos artefatos de monitoramento. Este estudo mostra que a concordância mútua na interpretação dos estudos de pH foi regular (coeficiente kappa de 0,70).
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the causes and degree of interobserver variability in esophageal pH monitoring for the diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux. METHODS: This retrospective study included all children (n = 72) who underwent pH monitoring during 1 year at Maxima Medical Centre in Veldhoven, the Netherlands. RESULTS: An interobserver variability of 18 percent was found. Variability was caused by differences in opinion about the duration of registration, doubts about probe position, artifacts and drift of baseline pH. CONCLUSIONS: Most of these problems can be eliminated by posttest calibration and assessment of the pH electrode position. However, a clear definition of monitoring artifacts is lacking. This study shows that mutual agreement in the interpretation of pH studies was fair (kappa coefficient of 0.70).