https://nova.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/ /manager/Index en-au 5 https://nova.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/ /manager/Repository/uon:14568 0.60), three with moderate reliability (κ = 0.41 - 0.60), and two with fair reliability (κ = 0.21 - 0.40). Raters found it difficult to agree about the spectrum of patients included in a study (Item 1) and the correct application and interpretation of the test (Item 10). Conclusions: In this study, we found that QAREL was a reliable assessment tool for studies of diagnostic reliability when raters agreed upon criteria for the interpretation of each item. Nine out of 11 items had good or moderate reliability, and two items achieved fair reliability. The heterogeneity in the tests included in this study may have resulted in an underestimation of the reliability of these two items. We discuss these and other factors that could affect our results and make recommendations for the use of QAREL.]]> Wed 11 Apr 2018 16:28:28 AEST ]]> https://nova.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/ /manager/Repository/uon:14829 Wed 11 Apr 2018 15:21:10 AEST ]]> https://nova.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/ /manager/Repository/uon:14021 2 for BMI) and high ICCs (>0.9) between self-reported and measured values. A substantially high kappa (0.70) was obtained when using self-reported weight and height relative to measured values to quantify the proportion underweight, normal weight, overweight or obese. While the average bias of self-reported weight and height as estimates of the measured quantities is small, the LOAs indicate that substantial discrepancies occur at the individual level. Conclusions: Informing patients that their weight and height would be measured did not improve accuracy of reporting. The use of self-reported weight and height for surveillance studies in this setting appears acceptable; however this measure needs to be interpreted with care when used for individual patients.]]> Wed 11 Apr 2018 13:50:49 AEST ]]>