Abstract
SUMMARYThe interpretations of 100 radiographically proved echoencephalograms by a group of readers with a wide spectrum of experience with echoencephalography were analyzed. The results suggest that when the examination is interpreted in the absence of any clinical clues and in accordance with relatively rigidly applied criteria, the process of interpretation assumes some degree of objectivity in that there is a high degree of interreader consistency. When these criteria are not precisely met, the more inexperienced reader will tend to call a study indeterminate rather than to offer an opinion as to the position of the midline structures. As experience with echoencephalography increases, the reader is more inclined to view the series of photographs taken as a composite and to give an opinion on certain additional studies. The overall accuracy for predictions actually made, however, appears to be quite constant under these circumstances, and in this study ranged from 93 to 95%.
Our data further suggest that the accuracy of the results of midline echoencephalographic determinations by experienced, well-trained, and supervised technicians is not significantly different from that obtained when the entire examination is performed by a physician.
- © 1970 by the American Academy of Neurology
AAN Members
We have changed the login procedure to improve access between AAN.com and the Neurology journals. If you are experiencing issues, please log out of AAN.com and clear history and cookies. (For instructions by browser, please click the instruction pages below). After clearing, choose preferred Journal and select login for AAN Members. You will be redirected to a login page where you can log in with your AAN ID number and password. When you are returned to the Journal, your name should appear at the top right of the page.
AAN Non-Member Subscribers
Purchase access
Letters: Rapid online correspondence
REQUIREMENTS
You must ensure that your Disclosures have been updated within the previous six months. Please go to our Submission Site to add or update your Disclosure information.
Your co-authors must send a completed Publishing Agreement Form to Neurology Staff (not necessary for the lead/corresponding author as the form below will suffice) before you upload your comment.
If you are responding to a comment that was written about an article you originally authored:
You (and co-authors) do not need to fill out forms or check disclosures as author forms are still valid
and apply to letter.
Submission specifications:
- Submissions must be < 200 words with < 5 references. Reference 1 must be the article on which you are commenting.
- Submissions should not have more than 5 authors. (Exception: original author replies can include all original authors of the article)
- Submit only on articles published within 6 months of issue date.
- Do not be redundant. Read any comments already posted on the article prior to submission.
- Submitted comments are subject to editing and editor review prior to posting.
You May Also be Interested in
Costs and Utilization of New-to-Market Neurologic Medications
Dr. Robert J. Fox and Dr. Mandy Leonard