Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

How subjective is nasal endoscopy? A study of interrater agreement using the Lund and Mackay scoring system.

BACKGROUND: Scoring systems exist to standardize the recording of nasal endoscopy findings. The extent to which two surgeons will agree on the findings of nasal endoscopy in adults currently is unknown, although a study in children showed high rates of agreement between two observers. We studied the interobserver agreement of adult nasal endoscopy scored with the system proposed by Lund and Mackay.

METHOD: A consecutive series of otolaryngology patients attending with a variety of nasal complaints were recruited. All were examined with a 0 degrees 4-mm endoscope by two surgeons on the same clinic visit. Each independently recorded their findings using the Lund and Mackay scoring system. Neither surgeon was aware of the other's findings.

RESULTS: Thirty patients were studied (16 women and 14 men). Because the endoscopic findings were recorded separately for each side of the nose, each surgeon made 60 observations. Interrater agreement was calculated as Cohen's kappa, and suggested moderate agreement for edema (kappa = 0.45), good agreement for crusting (kappa = 0.62), and very good agreement for polyp (kappa = 0.93) and discharge (kappa = 0.84).

CONCLUSION: Two independent observers agree on the findings of nasal endoscopy in a high proportion of cases. Nasal endoscopy is a reliable tool, especially when a scoring system such as that of Lund and Mackay is used.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app