Correspondence to. Dr I Abubakar, CDSC Eastern, IPH Xxxxxxxxx XX0 0XX, XX; ibrahim. xxxxxxxx@xxx.xxx.xx Accepted for publication 20 October 2003
Correspondence to. Xx Xxxx Xxxxxxxxx, Department of Family Medicaid insurance dataset Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, 0000 XX Xxx Xxxxxxx Park Rd, Portland, OR 97329, USA; xxxxxxxx@xxxx.xxx Received 13 September 2013 Revised 23 December 2013 Accepted 20 January 2014 Published Online First 7 February 2014 To cite: Xxxxxxxxx J, Xxxxxx XX, Xxxxxx XX, et al. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2014;21:720–724. BACKGROUND AND SIGNIFICANCE Healthcare organizations are increasingly required to measure and report the quality of care they deliver, for regulatory and reimbursement pur- poses.1–5 Such quality evaluations are often based on insurance claims data,6–8 which have been shown to accurately identify patients with certain diagnoses,9–12 but to be less accurate in identifying services provided, compared to other data sources.6–8 13 14
Correspondence to. Dr S Xxxxxxxxxx, Department of Cardiology, Xxxxxxx Hospital, Xxxxxxx Xxxx, Xxxxxxxxx xxxx Xxxx XX0 0XX, XX; xxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxx.xxx. uk Submitted 20 February 2005 Accepted 6 April 2005
Correspondence to. X Xxxxxxx, Department of Neurology, St Elisabeth Hospital, PO Box 90151, 5000 XX Xxxxxxx, The Netherlands; X.Xxxxxxx@Xxxxxxxxx.xx Received 31 March 2003 In revised form 22 June 2003 Accepted 28 June 2003 .......................
Correspondence to. Xx Xxxxxxx X Vernon, Eye, Ear, Nose and Throat Centre, Queen’s Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx, Xxxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxx, Xxxxxxxxxx XX0 0XX, XX; xxxxxxx_xxxxxx@xxxxxxx.xxx Accepted for publication 25 July 2001 ....................... Aims: To assess the intraobserver agreement, interobserver agreement, and the agreement between a digital stereo optic disc camera (Discam) and Heidelberg retina tomograph (HRT) in measuring area cup-disc ratio (ACDR) and radial cup-disc ratio (RCDR) by two observers. Methods: The optic discs of 78 eyes of 39 people (17 cases of primary open angle glaucoma, eight normal tension glaucoma, two ocular hypertension, and 12 normal subjects) were imaged with Discam and HRT. Two observers independently drew the disc margins on the HRT mean topography images and the disc and cup margins on the Discam images. ACDR and the RCDR at various angles were measured with the two systems. Intraobserver agreement, interobserver agreement, and the agreement between the two systems were assessed by 95% tolerance limit of changes (TC) and intraclass correla- tion coefficient (ICC). Results: Eight eyes were excluded due to poor image quality (six Discam and two HRT). 70 eyes were analysed. The intraobserver ACDR agreement was almost perfect in both systems (ICCs = 0.97 and 0.92, and TCs = 11.0% and 15.1% in HRT and Discam respectively). The interobserver ACDR agree- ment was almost perfect in HRT (ICC = 0.97) and substantial in Discam (ICC = 0.79), (TCs = 10.5% and 24.5% respectively). The ACDR agreement between the two systems was substantial in observer A (ICC = 0.67) and moderate in observer B (ICC = 0.53), (TCs = 24.8% and 46.7% respectively). The HRT measured the ACDR significantly larger than the Discam (p <0.001), and the differences were sig- nificantly larger in the glaucomatous group (p <0.001). RCDR agreement between the two systems was fair to substantial in observer A (ICC = 0.36 to 0.74) and slight to moderate in observer B (ICC = 0.12 to 0.45). Both observers achieved the best RCDR agreement between the two systems at the inferior optic disc position.
Correspondence to. Xxxxxxxxx Xxx Xxx Xxxx, Department of Community and Family Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, 4/F, School of Public Health, Prince of Wales Hospital, Shatin, NT, Hong Kong; xxxxxx@xxxx.xxx.xx Accepted 12 September 2002 .......................
Correspondence to. Dr Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxx, Department of Language and Communication Science, City University, Northampton Square, London EC1V 0HB, UK; x.xxxxxx@xxxx.xx.xx Received 18 November 2006 Revised 11 January 2007 Accepted 11 January 2007 Published Online First 26 January 2007 ........................
Correspondence to. Xx. Xxxxxxxxxxx Xxxxx, MD, DM, Additional Professor, Department of Endocrinology, Room no. 5444, 4th floor, Super specialty block, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research (JIPMER), Xxxxxxxxxx- 000000, Xxxxx. xxxxx@xxxxx.xxx After consultation by the authors and Baishideng Publishing Group (BPG), the authors agree that if this manuscript is finally accepted for publication, the Copyright License Agreement will become effective immediately. Please note that the designation of co-first authors and co-corresponding authors is not permitted. Application for copyright license agreement will be made by written declaration of and attestation to the following: 1 The copyright on any open access article in a journal published by BPG is retained by the author(s). 2 Author(s) grant BPG license to publish the article and identify itself as the original publisher. 9 Author(s) grant exclusive copyright ownership to BPG for all formats of the manuscript, including print and electronic formats, English and non-English language formats, and subsequent editions such as Erratum, in addition to all rights for (1) granting permission to republish or reprint the materials in whole or in part, with or without a fee, (2) printing copies for free distribution or for sale, and (3) republishing the materials in a compendium or in any other format. 10 Author(s) acknowledge that all articles published by BPG are selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers, in addition to BPG’s application of the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: xxxx://xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ 11 Author(s) grant permission to BPG to publish manuscript-related documents (e.g. peer review report, answers to reviewers, CrossCheck report, signed copyright license agreement, etc.) at the same time that the manuscript is published online. 12 Author(s) certify that the manuscript contains no errors in grammar, syntax, spelling, punctuation, or logic. 13 Author(s) certify that all figures and tables have been correctly placed and clearly identified, and meet the journal’s standards of high-resolution quality. 14 Author(s) certify that the references are numbered according to their order of appearan...
Correspondence to. Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx X, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai 50200, Thailand. Phone: +00-00-000000, Fax: +00-00-000000 Email: xxxxxxxx@xxxxx.xxx
Correspondence to. Xxxxxxxxx X. Xxxxx; email: xxxxxxxxx.xxxxx@xxx- xxxxxxx.xx Key words: Liver—Computer tomography—Pseudolesion—Histology Abbreviations CT Computed tomography MRI Magnetic resonance imaging PAS Periodic acid Schiff HE Hematoxylin and eosin EVG Xxxxxxx Xxx Xxxxxx XX Hounsfield unit PMI Post-mortem interval ICC Intraclass correlation coefficient Hepatic localized hypodense attenuating areas (so called ‘pseudolesions’) at the right side of the falciform liga- ment are not uncommon on computed tomography (CT) in non-cirrhotic, healthy livers [1–3] (Figs. 1, 2, 3). Mis- interpretation of pseudolesions may have severe impact on the choice of treatment, especially in patients suffer- ing from primary liver cancer or possible liver metas- tases. Recognition of these pseudolesions, therefore, is of high importance in daily radiological practice. Recogni- tion can be improved by understanding the pathohisto- logical origin of the parafissural pseudolesion. There are several hypotheses concerning the cause of the liver pseudolesions. The pseudolesions show a typical pattern in different phases of inflow of intravenous contrast material. In unenhanced or arterial phase im- ages the pseudolesion is not often identified [2]. In portal venous phase CT the parafissural pseudolesions have been described more often, in approximately 20% of cases [1–3]. This may be explained by the vascular hy- pothesis meaning that a ‘third inflow’ of blood from the
