Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 15, 2026

Identification of Disease-related Spatial Covariance Patterns using Neuroimaging Data
Published on: June 26, 2013
The influence of experience and specialisation on the reliability of a common clinical sign
D E Wallace1, G T McGreal, G O'Toole
1Department of Ophthalmology, Royal Victoria Eye and Ear Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.
Objectives:
To explore the influence of experience and specialisation on clinical judgement by comparing accuracy in diagnosing anaemia between a consultant general surgeon, a consultant ophthalmologist and their registrars.
Patients And Methods:
Conjunctival inspection of 101 patients, subsequent correlation with haemoglobin concentration.
Main Outcome Measures:
Number of correct and incorrect diagnoses of anaemia.
Results:
54 patients were anaemic and 47 were not. Overall accuracy in diagnosing anaemia ranged from 0.61-0.69, sensitivity 0.52-0.65 and specificity 0.62-0.83. Agreements between pairs of examiners were 0.68-0.81, with kappa values of 0.36-0.60 when adjusted for chance agreement.
Conclusions:
Neither experience nor specialisation significantly influenced our ability to diagnose anaemia, based on conjunctival inspection. Without critical analysis of clinical signs, we are unaware of their diagnostic limitations.
Related Concept Videos
Statistical Significance
The Availability Heuristic
Guidelines For Measuring Vital Signs
Before taking a patient's vital signs, a nurse would consider and assess the patient's comfort level and ensure appropriate equipment is available.
Sign Test for Matched Pairs
To conduct the sign test, we first calculate the differences in value between...
Sensitivity, Specificity, and Predicted Value
Sensitivity is the...
Endocarditis II: Clinical Features of Infective Endocarditis
