Why the study?
As the Agatston score has manifested itself in preventive cardiology, it is of interest to investigate how reproducibility of the score has been established given its often-observed skewed distribution.
How has the reproducibility of the Agatston score for coronary calcification been established in the literature?
How has the reproducibility of the Agatston score for coronary calcification been established in the literature?
Despite the widespread use of the Agatston score in preventive cardiology, few studies have convincingly derived Limits of Agreement for its reproducibility, highlighting a need for improved analysis and reporting.
Skewed Agatston distributions may bias standard comparisons in preventive cardiology; leaves open tailored metrics for coronary calcification screening.
Method comparison studies comprised simple scatterplots of paired measurements, a 45-degree line as benchmark, and correlation coefficients up to the advent of Bland-Altman analysis in the 1980s. The Agatston score for coronary calcification is based on computed tomography of the heart, and it originated in 1990. A peculiarity of the Agatston score is the often-observed skewed distribution in screening populations. As the Agatston score has manifested itself in preventive cardiology, it is of interest to investigate how reproducibility of the Agatston score has been established. This review is based on literature findings indexed in MEDLINE/PubMed before 20 November 2021. Out of 503 identified articles, 49 papers were included in this review. Sample sizes were highly variable (10-9761), the main focus comprised intra- and interrater as well as intra- and interscanner variability assessments. Simple analysis tools such as scatterplots and correlation coefficients were successively supplemented by first difference, later Bland-Altman plots; however, only very few publications were capable of deriving Limits of Agreement that fit the observed data visually in a convincing way. Moreover, several attempts have been made in the recent past to improve the analysis and reporting of method comparison studies. These warrant increased attention in the future.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Andersen et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: