Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- jnl:rajan2019 [2020/07/31 07:42]
admin add comment on avf as model
+++ jnl:rajan2019 [2020/07/31 07:44] (current)
admin [Commentary]
@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 ====Commentary====
 Model used
-  * AVF surgery in patients -- //in my not a real microsurgery model//
+  * AVF surgery in patients -- //in my view not a real microsurgery model//
 Assessment
@@ Line 22: / Line 22: @@
   - Use of different PGY years as comparison - may not be the best; assumption is that PGY 3 better than 2 better than 1
   - very small n for each group in PGY
-  - Inter-rater reliability seems better than intra-rater (time interval?)
+  - Inter-rater reliability seems better than intra-rater (time interval?) - //perhaps training the assessors would help//
   - [[ac:UWOMSA]] anastomosis module only 0.53-0.56 R^2
   - no data spread shown - only mean scores
   - [[ac:UWOMSA]] with GRS - R2 is 0.71-0.74
-  - Strangely enough, the authors recommend [[ac:UWOMSA]], although GRS seems to have better intra- and inter-rater reliability. Perhaps it is because as a tool to provide feedback, it is not useful. That is a weakness of global/ generic type scoring systems.
+  - Strangely enough, the authors recommend [[ac:UWOMSA]], although GRS seems to have better intra- and inter-rater reliability. Perhaps this is because, as a tool to provide feedback, it is not useful. That is a weakness of global/ generic type scoring systems.
 ====Source=====

Alphonsus Chong's Personal Wiki