UJI INTER-RATER RELIABILITY, SENSITIVITAS DAN SPESIFITAS ALAT UKUR PADA LUKA BERONGGA

Haryanto Haryanto; Parliani Parliani; Yenni Lukita

doi:10.31764/jces.v3i2.2365

UJI INTER-RATER RELIABILITY, SENSITIVITAS DAN SPESIFITAS ALAT UKUR PADA LUKA BERONGGA

Haryanto Haryanto, Parliani Parliani, Yenni Lukita

Abstract

Abstrak: Di beberapa negara maju seperti Jepang sudah mengembangkan alat untuk mengukur kedalaman luka yang aman. Namun, di Indonesia alat ini belum tersedia dipasaran. Berdasarkan hal ini, maka diperlukan alat yang sederhana dan terjangkau bagi tenaga kesehatan. Tujuan kegiatan ini adalah; 1) menguji inter-rater realibilitas H-Test pada luka yang memiliki rongga seperti undermining dan tunnelling, 2) menguji sensitivitas dan spesifitas penggunaan H-Test. Metode yang digunakan dengan menguji alat yang dilakukan oleh perawat yang memiliki sertifikat pada 10 pasien yang datang ke Klinik luka Kitamura PKU Muhammadiyah. Alat yang digunakan pada progam ini alat pengukur kedalaman luka yang telah dimodifikasi disebut H-test. Dalam menganalisa inter-rater reliabilitas dan sensitivitas dan spesifitas menggunakaan koefisien Cohen’s kappa. Hasil adalah nilai Kappa 0.70 (p<0,001) (substantial agreement), sedangkan sensitivitas didapatkan 83,3% dan spesifisitas 66,7%. Berdasarkan hasil ini, disimpulkan bahwa alat ini dapat mengukur dengan mudah kedalaman luka berongga.

Abstract: In some countries such as Japan has developed a tool to measure the depth of the wound safely. However, in Indonesia this tool is not yet available in the market. Based on this, a simple and affordable tool for health worker is needed. The purpose of this program was 1) to evaluate inter-rater reliability of H-test on wounds have cavity such as undermining and tunneling, 2) to evaluate sensitivity and specificity using H-Test. The method was used with evaluating the tool by nurses have certificate on 10 patients that came to Wound Care Clinic, PKU Muhammadiyah. The tool was used in this program was a wound cavities measure tool that was modified namely H-test. In analyzing inter-rater reliability, sensitivity and specificity used Cohen’s kappa coefficient. The result was Kappa value 0,70 (p<0.001) (substantial agreement), sensitivity 83,3% and specificity 66,7%. Based on this result, was concluded that this tool could to measure wound deep that have cavities easily.

Keywords

H-test, Undermining, Tunnelling, Luka Diabetes Mellitus.

Full Text:

PDF

References

Alexiadou, K., & Doupis, J. (2012). Management of diabetic foot ulcers. Diabetes Therapy. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13300-012-0004-9

Greatrex-White, S., & Moxey, H. (2015). Wound assessment tools and nurses’ needs: An evaluation study. International Wound Journal. https://doi.org/10.1111/iwj.12100

International Diabetes Federation. (2017). Atlas, 8th edition 2017. In IDF Diabetes Atlas, 8th edition. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31679-8.

Jørgensen, L. B., Sørensen, J. A., Jemec, G. B. E., & Yderstræde, K. B. (2016). Methods to assess area and volume of wounds – a systematic review. International Wound Journal. https://doi.org/10.1111/iwj.12472

KEMENKES. (2018). Hasil Utama Riskesdas Tentang Prevalensi Diabetes Mellitus di Indonesia 2018. Hasil Utama Riskesdas Tentang Prevalensi Diabetes Melitus Di Indonesia 2018.

Mariam, T. G., Alemayehu, A., Tesfaye, E., Mequannt, W., Temesgen, K., Yetwale, F., & Limenih, M. A. (2017). Prevalence of Diabetic Foot Ulcer and Associated Factors among Adult Diabetic Patients Who Attend the Diabetic Follow-Up Clinic at the University of Gondar Referral Hospital, North West Ethiopia, 2016: Institutional-Based Cross-Sectional Study. Journal of Diabetes Research. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/2879249

McHugh, M. L. (2012). Lessons in biostatistics interrater reliability : the kappa statistic. Biochemica Medica.

Mcsweeney, L., & Capozzoli, M. (2011). Interrater Kappa : Agreement. Canadian Journal Of Statistics.

Moxey, P. W., Gogalniceanu, P., Hinchliffe, R. J., Loftus, I. M., Jones, K. J., Thompson, M. M., & Holt, P. J. (2011). Lower extremity amputations - a review of global variability in incidence. Diabetic Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-5491.2011.03279.x

Namgoong, S., Jung, S., Han, S. K., Jeong, S. H., Dhong, E. S., & Kim, W. K. (2016). Risk factors for major amputation in hospitalised diabetic foot patients. International Wound Journal, 13, 13–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/iwj.12526

Noor, S., Zubair, M., & Ahmad, J. (2015). Diabetic foot ulcer - A review on pathophysiology, classification and microbial etiology. Diabetes and Metabolic Syndrome: Clinical Research and Reviews, 9(3), 192–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsx.2015.04.007

Okonkwo, U., & DiPietro, L. (2017). Diabetes and Wound Angiogenesis. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 18(7), 1419. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms18071419

Pantaleoni, E., Engel, B. A., & Johannsen, C. J. (2007). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Precision Agriculture. https://doi.org/10.4287/jsprs.40.43

Rini, S., Hadisaputro, S., Lestariningsih, L., Nugroho, H., & Budijitno, S. (2018). Faktor Risiko Penyakit Ginjal Kronik Diabetes (PGK-DM) pada Diabetes Mellitus Tipe-2 (Studi di RSUD DR Soedarso Kota Pontianak Provinsi Kalimantan Barat). Jurnal Epidemiologi Kesehatan Komunitas. https://doi.org/10.14710/jekk.v3i1.4028

Trevethan, R. (2017). Sensitivity, Specificity, and Predictive Values: Foundations, Pliabilities, and Pitfalls in Research and Practice. Frontiers in Public Health. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2017.00307

Turns, M. (2015). Prevention and management of diabetic foot ulcers. British Journal of Community Nursing. https://doi.org/10.12968/bjcn.2015.20.Sup3.S30

Yusuf, S., Okuwa, M., Irwan, M., Rassa, S., Laitung, B., Thalib, A., … Sugama, J. (2016). Prevalence and Risk Factor of Diabetic Foot Ulcers in a Regional Hospital , Eastern Indonesia. Open Journal of Nursing, 6(January), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojn.2016.61001

Zhang, P., Lu, J., Jing, Y., Tang, S., Zhu, D., & Bi, Y. (2017, February). Global epidemiology of diabetic foot ulceration: a systematic review and meta-analysis†. Annals of Medicine, Vol. 49, pp. 106–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/07853890.2016.1231932

DOI: https://doi.org/10.31764/jces.v3i2.2365