A quality classification should be written first in plain language and provide reliable guidelines to assist in the treatment, prognosis and reduction of the possibility of complications. In addition, it must be feasible, reliable and reproducible; This last characteristic is measured by the Interobserver agreement.1, 6 A classification is reproducible if several individuals are able to reproduce the same result at any time and anywhere.1 It becomes possible to compare the results of different centers with different patients and the respective results for each type of treatment. Another important factor is that of the 43 radios in 22, the choice between B and C was questionable (Table 2). On the other hand, Type A (A1 or A2) has always been consistent, with the exception of X-rays 4 and 38 (Table 2). This has been demonstrated by the reduction of the agreement in types B and C compared to type A. The authors believe that the parameter of distinction between bone (type B) and fracture of the dorsal region of the base of the distal phalanx (type C) is not well understood by observers. In the evaluation as a group, the Albertoni C1 and C2 types had a good compliance ratio with k -0.77 (0.70-0.83). For stratification in C1 (k – 0.52 [0.50-0.54]) and C2 (k – 0.42 [0.39-0.44]), the compliance coefficient showed a significant decrease of 41%, which became moderate for C1 and bad for C2. This suggests that the common congruence of the DIPJ is difficult to define. In other words, in the context of common congruence, support has declined considerably. The authors believe that one way to improve type C matching would be to better define the common congruence test.
This may lead to future changes in this classification. Hartmann, D. P. (1977, Spring). Reflections in the choice of the reliability estimates of inter-observers. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 103-116. For surgeons, the match was excellent in A (k -0.95 [0.91-0.99]), in B it was bad (k – 0.34 [0.31-0.38]), C (k – 0.71 [0.67-0.75]) it was good and in very bad D. The overall chord was good, with k -0.72 (0.69-0.74). Berk, R. A. (1979).
Generalization of behavioural observations: a clarification of the Interobserver agreement and the reliability of the inter-observer. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 83, 460-472. Suen, H. K., Lee, P.S. (1985). Impact of the use of a percentage agreement on behavioural observation: a reassessment. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 7, 221-234. There is no consensus in the literature on the limit value of k to consider a classification as reproducible.13, 15 These values are arbitrarily defined by the authors.15 Fleiss9 consider k values between 0.40 and 0.75 until moderate to good consent. Svanholm et al.25 consider only a good k value above 0.75. In return, Brage et al.22 k-values above 0.50 are considered reproducible. Landis and Koch,12 of the parameters used in this study (Table 1) and the parameters most commonly used today13 considered a moderate agreement such as that of the range of 0.4 to 0.6 and a good match above 0.6.
The Albertoni B1 and B2 types had a moderate compliance coefficient (k -0.42 [0.39-0.44]) during the evaluation. For stratification in B1 (k – 0.38 [0.36-0.40]) and B2 (k – 0.28 [0.26-0.30], the approval coefficient decreased by 21% because it was considered poor.