Table 2 Inter-observer reliability of different types of stroke classification systems
Study | Classification system | κ | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|---|
TOAST classification system | |||
 Ay et al., 2005 [17] (n = 50) | TOAST | 0.78 | 0.64–0.92 |
 Fure et al., 2005 [16] (n = 38) | TOAST | 0.30 | * |
 Goldstein et al., 2001a [19] (n = 14) | TOAST (11 categories) | 0.29 | 0.21–0.37 |
TOAST | 0.42 | 0.32–0.53 | |
 Goldstein et al., 2001b [19] (n = 20) | TOAST computerised algorithm | 0.68 | 0.44–0.91 |
 Gordon et al., 1993 [22] (n = 18) | TOAST | 0.64 | * |
 Han et al., 2007 [15] (n = 200) | TOAST | 0.78 | * |
 Meschia et al., 2006 [20] (n = 30) | TOAST | 0.54 | 0.48–0.60 |
 Nam et al., 2012 [21] (n = 70) | iTOAST | 0.79 | 0.71–0.87 |
TOAST | 0.69 | 0.60–0.78 | |
 Selvarajah et al., 2009 [18] (n = 90) | TOAST | 0.42 | 0.32–0.52** |
 Wolf et al., 2012 [23] (n = 103) | TOAST | 0.95 | * |
CCS | |||
 Arsava et al., 2010 [27] (n = 50) | CCS: 5 subtype | 0.80 | 0.78–0.81 |
8 subtype | 0.79 | 0.77–0.80 | |
16 subtype | 0.70 | 0.69–0.71 | |
 Ay et al., 2005 [17] (n = 50) | 5 subtype | 0.86 | 0.76–0.96 |
 Ay et al., 2007 [28] (n = 50) | 5 subtype | 0.86 | 0.81–0.91 |
8 subtype | 0.85 | 0.80–0.89 | |
16 subtype | 0.80 | 0.76–0.83 | |
 Marnane et al., 2010 [26] (n = 381) | 5 subtype | 0.64 | 0.44–0.82** |
ASCO classification system | |||
 Chen et al., 2013 [25] (n = 419) | Phenotype: A | 0.79 | 0.74–0.83 |
S | 0.80 | 0.75–0.85 | |
C | 0.87 | 0.83–0.91 | |
O | 0.86 | 0.78–0.94 | |
 Marnane et al., 2010 [26] (n = 381) | A | 0.79 | * |
S | 0.48 | * | |
C | 0.88 | * | |
O | 0.66 | * | |
 Wolf et al., 2012 [23] (n = 103) | A | 0.95 | * |
S | 0.95 | * | |
C | 1.00 | * | |
O | 0.92 | * | |
Other classification system | |||
 Han et al., 2007 [15] (n = 200) | Han et al. (2007) classification | 0.82 | * |