Reliability of the Functional Independence Measure with Occupational Therapists

This paper reports an inter-rater reliability study on the Functional Independence Measure (FIM). The FIM measures inpatient burden of care, as reflected in 18 self care items, rated on a seven point scale from dependent to independent. The subjects were 40 occupational therapists, divided according to experience with the FIM and randomly assigned to a FIM training or non-training group. Subjects rated video tapes of four stroke patients on transfers, bathing, dressing, grooming, toileting and eating items from the FIM. Rater consensus was calculated using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), percentage agreement and a measure of disagreement. Rating accuracy was measured by comparisons with an expert rater. Ratings were most reliable when done by clinicians with no prior FIM experience, from the FIM training group. It is strongly recommended that all clinicians undergo FIM training before using this tool to ensure acceptable reliability.     

Role of delayed enhancement MRI in patients with acute coronary syndrome and unobstructed coronary arteries: reply

We thank Coceani and L'Abbate for their comments on our paper.We concur that ‘pathophysiology cannot be inferred fromcoronary lumenography alone’, and this was one of thekey motivations in conducting the present study.     

A systematic review of the ultrasound estimation of fetal weight.

OBJECTIVES: The range and use of ultrasound fetal measurements have gradually been extended. Measurements have been combined to estimate fetal weight by mathematically based non-linear regression analysis or physically based volumetric methods. Fetal weight estimation is inaccurate, with poor sensitivity for prediction of fetal compromise. Several authors have shown the unacceptable level of intra- and interobserver variability in fetal measurement and the impact of errors on growth assessment. The aims of this study were to review the available methods and possible sources of inaccuracy. METHODS: Four databases were searched for studies comparing ultrasound estimated fetal weight (EFW) with birth weight. Studies meeting the inclusion criteria evaluated 11 different methods. Errors were graphically summarized. RESULTS: No consistently superior method has emerged. Volumetric methods provide some theoretical advantages. Random errors are large and must be reduced if clinical errors are to be avoided. CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy of EFW is compromised by large intra- and interobserver variability. Efforts must be made to minimize this variability if EFW is to be clinically useful. This may be achieved through averaging of multiple measurements, improvements in image quality, uniform calibration of equipment, careful design and refinement of measurement methods, acknowledgment that there is a long learning curve, and regular audit of measurement quality. Further work to improve the universal validity and accuracy of fetal weight estimation formulae is also required.