{"title":"伪影水平对儿童尿动力学轨迹内和观察者间一致性的影响。","authors":"Arzu Canmemis, Seyhmus K Ozel","doi":"10.1016/j.jpurol.2024.12.010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>In pediatric urology, urodynamic studies are considered the most reliable method for assessing the function of the lower urinary tract. These evaluations play a particularly important role in guiding treatment decisions for neurogenic bladder conditions.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The aim of this study is to assess the impact of artifacts on the interobserver and intraobserver agreement in the interpretation of pediatric urodynamic traces.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Two pediatric urology experts, each with a broad spectrum of clinical expertise, conducted a thorough retrospective analysis of the urodynamic tracings. This evaluation was independently performed by the specialists on two separate occasions, with a three-month interval between sessions. The patients were categorized into three groups based on the quality of their recordings: Group 1: No artifacts (n = 30), Group 2: 1-5 artifacts (n = 30), Group 3: More than 5 artifacts (n = 30).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 90 patients were included in our study, with each group comprising 30 participants. Observer 1's initial and fourth-month measurements by groups, a statistically significant difference was found between the initial MDP measurement values of the cases according to the groups (p = 0.012). High interobserver agreement was observed for EBC, CBC, MDP, and Q max variables across all groups (p < 0.001 for each comparison). In intra-observer agreement for qualitative assessments (compliance, detrusor function, character of overactivity, and DSD), Observer 2 demonstrated lower agreement in groups 2 and 3. Group 3, which had urodynamics with a lot of artifacts, was the group with the lowest agreement values.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Few studies in the literature assess the intra- and interobserver agreement of urodynamic studies, with reported variations. Venhola et al. and Zimmern et al. found inconsistent interpretations among observers. Quantitative assessments showed higher reliability than qualitative ones. Our study aligns with these findings, indicating variability due to artifacts and differing interpretations of detrusor overactivity.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Artifacts significantly impact interobserver and intraobserver agreement in pediatric urodynamic studies. While quantitative parameters showed higher agreement, particularly in recordings with fewer artifacts, the presence of numerous artifacts in Group 3 led to decreased consistency in evaluations.</p><p><strong>Type of study: </strong>Retrospective observational study.</p>","PeriodicalId":16747,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pediatric Urology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The impact of artifact levels on intra- and interobserver agreement in pediatric urodynamic traces.\",\"authors\":\"Arzu Canmemis, Seyhmus K Ozel\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jpurol.2024.12.010\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>In pediatric urology, urodynamic studies are considered the most reliable method for assessing the function of the lower urinary tract. These evaluations play a particularly important role in guiding treatment decisions for neurogenic bladder conditions.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The aim of this study is to assess the impact of artifacts on the interobserver and intraobserver agreement in the interpretation of pediatric urodynamic traces.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Two pediatric urology experts, each with a broad spectrum of clinical expertise, conducted a thorough retrospective analysis of the urodynamic tracings. This evaluation was independently performed by the specialists on two separate occasions, with a three-month interval between sessions. The patients were categorized into three groups based on the quality of their recordings: Group 1: No artifacts (n = 30), Group 2: 1-5 artifacts (n = 30), Group 3: More than 5 artifacts (n = 30).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 90 patients were included in our study, with each group comprising 30 participants. Observer 1's initial and fourth-month measurements by groups, a statistically significant difference was found between the initial MDP measurement values of the cases according to the groups (p = 0.012). High interobserver agreement was observed for EBC, CBC, MDP, and Q max variables across all groups (p < 0.001 for each comparison). In intra-observer agreement for qualitative assessments (compliance, detrusor function, character of overactivity, and DSD), Observer 2 demonstrated lower agreement in groups 2 and 3. Group 3, which had urodynamics with a lot of artifacts, was the group with the lowest agreement values.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Few studies in the literature assess the intra- and interobserver agreement of urodynamic studies, with reported variations. Venhola et al. and Zimmern et al. found inconsistent interpretations among observers. Quantitative assessments showed higher reliability than qualitative ones. Our study aligns with these findings, indicating variability due to artifacts and differing interpretations of detrusor overactivity.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Artifacts significantly impact interobserver and intraobserver agreement in pediatric urodynamic studies. While quantitative parameters showed higher agreement, particularly in recordings with fewer artifacts, the presence of numerous artifacts in Group 3 led to decreased consistency in evaluations.</p><p><strong>Type of study: </strong>Retrospective observational study.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16747,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Pediatric Urology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Pediatric Urology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpurol.2024.12.010\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PEDIATRICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Pediatric Urology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpurol.2024.12.010","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PEDIATRICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
导读:在儿科泌尿学中,尿动力学研究被认为是评估下尿路功能最可靠的方法。这些评估在指导神经源性膀胱疾病的治疗决策中起着特别重要的作用。目的:本研究的目的是评估在解释儿童尿动力学痕迹时,伪影对观察者之间和观察者内部一致性的影响。方法:两位具有广泛临床专业知识的儿科泌尿科专家对尿动力学追踪进行了全面的回顾性分析。这项评估是由专家在两个不同的场合独立进行的,每次会议之间间隔三个月。根据录音质量将患者分为三组:第一组:无伪影(n = 30),第二组:1-5伪影(n = 30),第三组:超过5个伪影(n = 30)。结果:本研究共纳入90例患者,每组30例。观察者1的初始和第4个月的分组测量,各组病例的初始MDP测量值之间存在统计学差异(p = 0.012)。在所有组中观察到EBC、CBC、MDP和Q max变量的高度一致(p讨论:文献中很少有研究评估尿动力学研究的观察者内部和观察者之间的一致性,报告存在差异。Venhola et al.和Zimmern et al.发现观察者之间的解释不一致。定量评价的信度高于定性评价。我们的研究与这些发现一致,表明了人为因素和对逼尿肌过度活动的不同解释造成的差异。结论:伪影显著影响儿童尿动力学研究中观察者之间和观察者内部的一致性。虽然定量参数显示出较高的一致性,特别是在人工制品较少的记录中,但第3组中大量人工制品的存在导致评估一致性降低。研究类型:回顾性观察研究。
The impact of artifact levels on intra- and interobserver agreement in pediatric urodynamic traces.
Introduction: In pediatric urology, urodynamic studies are considered the most reliable method for assessing the function of the lower urinary tract. These evaluations play a particularly important role in guiding treatment decisions for neurogenic bladder conditions.
Objective: The aim of this study is to assess the impact of artifacts on the interobserver and intraobserver agreement in the interpretation of pediatric urodynamic traces.
Methods: Two pediatric urology experts, each with a broad spectrum of clinical expertise, conducted a thorough retrospective analysis of the urodynamic tracings. This evaluation was independently performed by the specialists on two separate occasions, with a three-month interval between sessions. The patients were categorized into three groups based on the quality of their recordings: Group 1: No artifacts (n = 30), Group 2: 1-5 artifacts (n = 30), Group 3: More than 5 artifacts (n = 30).
Results: A total of 90 patients were included in our study, with each group comprising 30 participants. Observer 1's initial and fourth-month measurements by groups, a statistically significant difference was found between the initial MDP measurement values of the cases according to the groups (p = 0.012). High interobserver agreement was observed for EBC, CBC, MDP, and Q max variables across all groups (p < 0.001 for each comparison). In intra-observer agreement for qualitative assessments (compliance, detrusor function, character of overactivity, and DSD), Observer 2 demonstrated lower agreement in groups 2 and 3. Group 3, which had urodynamics with a lot of artifacts, was the group with the lowest agreement values.
Discussion: Few studies in the literature assess the intra- and interobserver agreement of urodynamic studies, with reported variations. Venhola et al. and Zimmern et al. found inconsistent interpretations among observers. Quantitative assessments showed higher reliability than qualitative ones. Our study aligns with these findings, indicating variability due to artifacts and differing interpretations of detrusor overactivity.
Conclusion: Artifacts significantly impact interobserver and intraobserver agreement in pediatric urodynamic studies. While quantitative parameters showed higher agreement, particularly in recordings with fewer artifacts, the presence of numerous artifacts in Group 3 led to decreased consistency in evaluations.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Pediatric Urology publishes submitted research and clinical articles relating to Pediatric Urology which have been accepted after adequate peer review.
It publishes regular articles that have been submitted after invitation, that cover the curriculum of Pediatric Urology, and enable trainee surgeons to attain theoretical competence of the sub-specialty.
It publishes regular reviews of pediatric urological articles appearing in other journals.
It publishes invited review articles by recognised experts on modern or controversial aspects of the sub-specialty.
It enables any affiliated society to advertise society events or information in the journal without charge and will publish abstracts of papers to be read at society meetings.