Inter-rater Reliability of the Classification of the J-Sign Is Inadequate Among Experts

The purpose of this study was to determine the inter-rater and intra-rater reliability of the symmetry, classification, and underlying pathoanatomy associated with the J-sign in patients with recurrent lateral patellofemoral instability.

Blinded, inter-rater reliability study.

N/A.

Thirty patellofemoral joint experts.

Thirty clinicians independently assessed 30 video recordings of patients with recurrent lateral patellofemoral instability performing the J-sign test.

Raters documented J-sign symmetry and graded it according to the quadrant and Donell classifications. Raters indicated the most significant underlying pathoanatomy and presence of sagittal plane maltracking. Intra-rater reliability was assessed by 4 raters repeating the assessments. Mean pairwise simple and/or weighted Cohen's kappa were performed to measure inter-rater and intra-rater reliability, as well as calculation of percent agreement.

J-sign symmetry demonstrated fair inter-rater reliability (k = 0.26), whereas intra-rater reliability was moderate (k = 0.48). Inter-rater reliability for the quadrant and Donell classifications indicated moderate agreement, k = 0.51 and k = 0.49, respectively, whereas intra-rater reliability was k = 0.79 and k = 0.72, indicating substantial agreement. Inter-rater reliability of the foremost underlying pathoanatomy produced only slight agreement (k = 0.20); however, intra-rater reliability was substantial (k = 0.68). Sagittal plane maltracking demonstrated slight inter-rater agreement (k = 0.23) but substantial intra-rater agreement (k = 0.64).

The symmetry, classification, and underlying pathoanatomy of the J-sign demonstrated fair to moderate inter-rater reliability and moderate to substantial intra-rater reliability among expert reviewers using video recordings of patients with recurrent lateral patellofemoral instability. These findings suggest individual raters have a consistent standard for assessing the J-sign, but that these standards are not reliable between assessors.

III.