Interrater agreement and reliability of the Bosniak classification for cystic renal masses version 2019.

Mohammad Abufaraj, Yazeed E Alhanbali, Sarah B Al-Qalalweh, Ubadah Froukh, Nabil William G Sweis, Mohammad Yousef Mahmoud, Mohamed A O Kharabsheh, Osama Samara, Shahrokh F Shariat
{"title":"Interrater agreement and reliability of the Bosniak classification for cystic renal masses version 2019.","authors":"Mohammad Abufaraj, Yazeed E Alhanbali, Sarah B Al-Qalalweh, Ubadah Froukh, Nabil William G Sweis, Mohammad Yousef Mahmoud, Mohamed A O Kharabsheh, Osama Samara, Shahrokh F Shariat","doi":"10.1016/j.urolonc.2024.10.011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The Bosniak classification for cystic renal masses has undergone refinements since its inception. The 2019 version provides more objective criteria to enhance interrater agreement but needs validation. This study compares the interrater agreement of the 2005 and 2019 Bosniak classifications for cystic renal masses.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Forty cystic renal masses identified on computed tomography scans were selected, distributed equally among the five classes of the 2005 Bosniak classification. Eight radiology residents participated in 2 consecutive rating sessions using the 2005 and 2019 versions, respectively, with a 1-month wash-out period in between. Interrater reliability was assessed using Fleiss' κ, and changes in cyst classes between the versions were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fleiss' κ values for interrater reliability were 0.354 (0.286-0.431) for 2005 and 0.373 (0.292-0.487) for 2019, indicating fair to moderate agreement. A significant decrease in cyst grades was noted using the 2019 version (Z = 3.49, r = 0.55, P < 0.001) among all cysts assessed by residents and only in complex cysts assessed by consultants (Z = 1.907, r = 0.275, P = 0.048).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Interrater agreement was similar for both classifications, ranging from fair to moderate. The 2019 version increased the proportion of masses downgraded to lower classes. Comprehensive training may enhance reliability and accuracy.</p>","PeriodicalId":23408,"journal":{"name":"Urologic Oncology-seminars and Original Investigations","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urologic Oncology-seminars and Original Investigations","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2024.10.011","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The Bosniak classification for cystic renal masses has undergone refinements since its inception. The 2019 version provides more objective criteria to enhance interrater agreement but needs validation. This study compares the interrater agreement of the 2005 and 2019 Bosniak classifications for cystic renal masses.

Methods: Forty cystic renal masses identified on computed tomography scans were selected, distributed equally among the five classes of the 2005 Bosniak classification. Eight radiology residents participated in 2 consecutive rating sessions using the 2005 and 2019 versions, respectively, with a 1-month wash-out period in between. Interrater reliability was assessed using Fleiss' κ, and changes in cyst classes between the versions were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.

Results: Fleiss' κ values for interrater reliability were 0.354 (0.286-0.431) for 2005 and 0.373 (0.292-0.487) for 2019, indicating fair to moderate agreement. A significant decrease in cyst grades was noted using the 2019 version (Z = 3.49, r = 0.55, P < 0.001) among all cysts assessed by residents and only in complex cysts assessed by consultants (Z = 1.907, r = 0.275, P = 0.048).

Conclusion: Interrater agreement was similar for both classifications, ranging from fair to moderate. The 2019 version increased the proportion of masses downgraded to lower classes. Comprehensive training may enhance reliability and accuracy.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
2019版Bosniak肾囊性肿块分类法的内部一致性和可靠性。
背景:Bosniak 肾脏囊性肿块分类法自诞生以来一直在不断完善。2019 年版本提供了更客观的标准,以提高术者间的一致性,但还需要验证。本研究比较了 2005 年和 2019 年 Bosniak 肾脏囊性肿块分类的术者间一致性:方法:选取计算机断层扫描中发现的 40 个囊性肾肿块,平均分配到 2005 Bosniak 分类的五个等级中。8 名放射科住院医师分别使用 2005 年版和 2019 年版连续参加了 2 次评级,中间有 1 个月的冲洗期。使用Fleiss'κ评估互译可靠性,使用Wilcoxon符号秩检验评估不同版本之间囊肿等级的变化:2005年的Fleiss'κ值为0.354(0.286-0.431),2019年的Fleiss'κ值为0.373(0.292-0.487),表明两者之间的一致性为中等偏上。由住院医师评估的所有囊肿和由顾问评估的复杂囊肿(Z = 1.907,r = 0.275,P = 0.048)中,使用2019年版本的囊肿分级明显降低(Z = 3.49,r = 0.55,P < 0.001):两种分类的互译一致性相似,从一般到中等不等。2019年版本增加了肿块降级到较低级别的比例。全面的培训可提高可靠性和准确性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
3.70%
发文量
297
审稿时长
7.6 weeks
期刊介绍: Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations is the official journal of the Society of Urologic Oncology. The journal publishes practical, timely, and relevant clinical and basic science research articles which address any aspect of urologic oncology. Each issue comprises original research, news and topics, survey articles providing short commentaries on other important articles in the urologic oncology literature, and reviews including an in-depth Seminar examining a specific clinical dilemma. The journal periodically publishes supplement issues devoted to areas of current interest to the urologic oncology community. Articles published are of interest to researchers and the clinicians involved in the practice of urologic oncology including urologists, oncologists, and radiologists.
期刊最新文献
Editorial Board Table of Contents Cover 2 - Masthead 2023 Star Reviewers for Urologic Oncology Cover 3 - Information for Authors
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1