Key result
Cardiovascular preparticipation examinations showed a low level of agreement between sports medicine fellows and no agreement with a cardiologist.
Cross-Sectional (n=101)
No
There is a low level of interobserver agreement among physicians regarding the need for further cardiovascular testing during athletic preparticipation examinations, challenging current standards of care.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Low agreement warrants caution in screening decisions; challenges consensus on reliability and leaves open standardization effects.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the interobserver agreement between physicians regarding a abnormal cardiovascular assessment on athletic preparticipation examinations. DESIGN: Cross-sectional clinical survey. SETTING: Outpatient Clinic, United States Military Academy, West Point, NY. PARTICIPANTS: We randomly selected 101 out of 539 cadet-athletes presenting for a preparticipation examination. Two primary care sports medicine fellows and a cardiologist examined the cadets. INTERVENTIONS: After obtaining informed consent from all participants, all 3 physicians separately evaluated all 101 cadets. The physicians recorded their clinical findings and whether they thought further cardiovascular evaluation (echocardiography) was indicated. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Rate of referral for further cardiovascular evaluation, clinical agreement between sports medicine fellows, and clinical agreement between sports medicine fellows and the cardiologist. RESULTS: Each fellow referred 6 of the 101 evaluated cadets (5.9%). The cardiologist referred none. Although each fellow referred 6 cadets, only 1 cadet was referred by both. The kappa statistic for clinical agreement between fellows is 0.114 (95% CI, -0.182 to 0.411). There was no clinical agreement between the fellows and the cardiologist. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study reveals a low level of agreement between physicians regarding which athletes with an abnormal examination deserved further testing. It challenges the standard of care and questions whether there is a need for improved technologies or improved training in cardiovascular clinical assessment.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
O’Connor et al. (2005) conducted a cross-sectional in Cadet-athletes presenting for a preparticipation examination (n=101). Cardiovascular assessment by sports medicine fellows vs cardiologist was evaluated on Clinical agreement between sports medicine fellows (kappa 0.114, 95% CI -0.182 to 0.411). Cardiovascular preparticipation examinations showed a low level of agreement between sports medicine fellows and no agreement with a cardiologist.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: