Cover Image

Objective assessment of aesthetic outcome after breast conserving therapy: Subjective third party panel rating and objective BCCT.core software evaluation

We analysed intra- and inter-rater agreement of subjective third party assessment and agreement with a semi-automated objective software evaluation tool (BCCT.core). We presented standardized photographs of 50 patients, taken shortly and one year after surgery to a panel of five breast surgeons, six...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Heil, Jörg (Author) , Carolus, Anne (Author) , Dahlkamp, Julia (Author) , Golatta, Michael (Author) , Domschke, Christoph (Author) , Schütz, Florian (Author) , Blumenstein, Maria (Author) , Rauch, Geraldine (Author) , Sohn, Christof (Author)
Format: Article (Journal)
Language:English
Published: 2012
In: The breast
Year: 2012, Volume: 21, Issue: 1, Pages: 61-65
ISSN:1532-3080
DOI:10.1016/j.breast.2011.07.013
Online Access:Verlag, kostenfrei registrierungspflichtig, Volltext: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2011.07.013
Verlag, kostenfrei registrierungspflichtig, Volltext: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960977611001639
Get full text
Author Notes:Joerg Heil, Anne Carolus, Julia Dahlkamp, Michael Golatta, Christoph Domschke, Florian Schuetz, Maria Blumenstein, Geraldine Rauch, Christof Sohn
Description
Summary:We analysed intra- and inter-rater agreement of subjective third party assessment and agreement with a semi-automated objective software evaluation tool (BCCT.core). We presented standardized photographs of 50 patients, taken shortly and one year after surgery to a panel of five breast surgeons, six breast nurses, seven members of a breast cancer support group, five medical and seven non-medical students. In two turns they rated aesthetic outcome on a four point scale. Moreover the same photographs were evaluated by the BCCT.core software. Intra-rater agreement in the panel members was moderate to substantial (k = 0.4-0.5; wk = 0.6-0.7; according to different subgroups and times of assessment). In contrast inter-rater agreement was only slight to fair (mk = 0.1-0.3). Agreement between the panel participants and the software was fair (wk = 0.24-0.45). Subjective third party assessment only fairly agree with objective BCCT.core evaluation just as third party participants do not agree well among each other.
Item Description:Published online: 17 August 2011
Gesehen am 16.04.2018
Physical Description:Online Resource
ISSN:1532-3080
DOI:10.1016/j.breast.2011.07.013

Similar Items