Abstract
We performed a routine neurologic examination on 200 patients who were reexamined by a second physician under three different conditions: (1) reexamination of only one item, (2) complete reexamination without knowledge of the patient's history and complaints, and (3) complete reexamination with such knowledge. We used changes in reliability as an index of the effect of additional information on basic data collection. Additional information increased reliability, indicating that diagnostic hypotheses obtained mainly from the history improve the examiner's precision. When a complete reexamination was performed with knowledge of the patient's history, reliability was substantial (k >0.6). More experienced examiners do not perform the examination more reliably, but do utilize the patient's history differently.
- © 1992 by the American Academy of Neurology
Letters: Rapid online correspondence
REQUIREMENTS
You must ensure that your Disclosures have been updated within the previous six months. Please go to our Submission Site to add or update your Disclosure information.
Your co-authors must send a completed Publishing Agreement Form to Neurology Staff (not necessary for the lead/corresponding author as the form below will suffice) before you upload your comment.
If you are responding to a comment that was written about an article you originally authored:
You (and co-authors) do not need to fill out forms or check disclosures as author forms are still valid
and apply to letter.
Submission specifications:
- Submissions must be < 200 words with < 5 references. Reference 1 must be the article on which you are commenting.
- Submissions should not have more than 5 authors. (Exception: original author replies can include all original authors of the article)
- Submit only on articles published within 6 months of issue date.
- Do not be redundant. Read any comments already posted on the article prior to submission.
- Submitted comments are subject to editing and editor review prior to posting.
