AIMS: Objective data are useful in quantifying a patient's lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS). We are investigating the use of an inflatable penile cuff to obstruct flow progressively during voiding, and thereby determine the pressure p(cuff,int) at which flow is interrupted. The aim of this study was to determine the agreement between experienced observers in their estimates of p(cuff,int). METHODS: We recorded 486 cuff inflation cycles during 142 voids from 42 subjects recruited from urology out-patient's and prostate assessment clinics. Each inflation cycle was assessed independently by three experienced observers, a total of 1,458 ratings. According to our standard assessment procedure, the observers (i) indicated whether the inflation should be analyzed, (ii) estimated p(cuff,int) for those inflation cycles judged suitable for analysis, and (iii) discarded measurements that were clearly inconsistent with others from the same voiding cycle. RESULTS: Overall, 689 of the 1,458 ratings (45%) were excluded, with just 4% of all ratings discarded for inconsistency. For 385 of the 486 inflation cycles (79%) there was complete agreement that the cycle should or should not be analyzed. Thereafter, for the 262 inflation cycles analyzed by two or three observers, the overall SD error in measurements of p(cuff,int) was 4.6 cm H(2)O. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that there is good agreement between experienced observers in their interpretation of data from the cuff test. For practical purposes, there is no need for multiple observers in the clinical application of the cuff method. Copyright 2003 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
AIMS: Objective data are useful in quantifying a patient's lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS). We are investigating the use of an inflatable penile cuff to obstruct flow progressively during voiding, and thereby determine the pressure p(cuff,int) at which flow is interrupted. The aim of this study was to determine the agreement between experienced observers in their estimates of p(cuff,int). METHODS: We recorded 486 cuff inflation cycles during 142 voids from 42 subjects recruited from urology out-patient's and prostate assessment clinics. Each inflation cycle was assessed independently by three experienced observers, a total of 1,458 ratings. According to our standard assessment procedure, the observers (i) indicated whether the inflation should be analyzed, (ii) estimated p(cuff,int) for those inflation cycles judged suitable for analysis, and (iii) discarded measurements that were clearly inconsistent with others from the same voiding cycle. RESULTS: Overall, 689 of the 1,458 ratings (45%) were excluded, with just 4% of all ratings discarded for inconsistency. For 385 of the 486 inflation cycles (79%) there was complete agreement that the cycle should or should not be analyzed. Thereafter, for the 262 inflation cycles analyzed by two or three observers, the overall SD error in measurements of p(cuff,int) was 4.6 cm H(2)O. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that there is good agreement between experienced observers in their interpretation of data from the cuff test. For practical purposes, there is no need for multiple observers in the clinical application of the cuff method. Copyright 2003 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
Authors: Brian A Parsons; Elizabeth Bright; Ahmed M Shaban; Anne Whitehouse; Marcus J Drake Journal: World J Urol Date: 2009-11-15 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Kang Sup Kim; Yong Sun Choi; Woong Jin Bae; Hyuk Jin Cho; Ji Youl Lee; Sung-Hoo Hong; Sae Woong Kim Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2020-04-21 Impact factor: 4.241
Authors: Christopher Harding; Wendy Robson; Michael Drinnan; Stuart McIntosh; Mustafa Sajeel; Clive Giffiths; Robert Pickard Journal: Indian J Urol Date: 2009-01