[Interobserver variation in the application of 2 disability scales in heart patients]

Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 1992 Apr 25;136(17):831-4.
[Article in Dutch]

Abstract

Objective: To examine the use of the Rankin scale for the assessment of disability in patients with ischaemic heart disease.

Setting: University Hospital Utrecht.

Design: Prospective interobserver study.

Patients and methods: Fifty-two outpatients with heart disease (previous myocardial infarction, angina or both) were separately interviewed by four physicians (residents or specialists), viz., two cardiologists and two neurologists. The degree of disability was recorded by each observer on two different scales: the modified Rankin scale, a six-point scale developed from a neurological background, and the four-point scale developed by the New York Heart Association (NYHA). The agreement rates for the observers (23 in all) were corrected for chance (kappa-statistics; maximum 1.0).

Results: Total agreement on both scales was found for six of the participating 51 patients and for 10 and 11 patients when the Rankin scale and the NYHA scale were considered separately. Kappa values were 0.21 for the Rankin scale and 0.24 for the NYHA scale. The weighted kappa values were 0.56 and 0.47, respectively. The agreement among neurologists and cardiologists was comparable.

Conclusion: The agreement rates of cardiologists and neurologists in the use of the Rankin scale and the NYHA scale in outpatients with heart disease are at best satisfactory. The good results of an earlier study with the Rankin scale in stroke patients were not achieved. This study indicates that the Rankin scale may be useful for the assessment of disability from heart disease particularly in patients with neurological disease, but there is room for further improvement.

Publication types

  • Comparative Study
  • English Abstract

MeSH terms

  • Angina Pectoris / diagnosis*
  • Disability Evaluation*
  • Female
  • Humans
  • Male
  • Middle Aged
  • Myocardial Infarction / diagnosis*
  • Observer Variation*
  • Prospective Studies