PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to evaluate the inter-observer reproducibility in reporting on renal drainage obtained during (99m)Tc MAG3 renography in children, when already processed data are offered to the observers. METHODS: Because web site facilities were used for communication, 57 observers from five continents participated in the study. Twenty-three renograms, including furosemide stimulation and posterect postmicturition views, covering various patterns of drainage, were submitted to the observers. Images, curves and quantitative parameters were provided. Good or almost good drainage, partial drainage and poor or no drainage were the three possible responses for each kidney. RESULTS: An important bias was observed among the observers, some of them more systematically reporting the drainage as being good, while others had a general tendency to consider the drainage as poor. This resulted in rather poor inter-observer reproducibility, as for more than half of the kidneys, less than 80% of the observers agreed on one of the three responses. Analysis of the individual cases identified some obvious causes of discrepancy: the absence of a clear limit between partial and good or almost good drainage, the fact of including or neglecting the effect of micturition and change of patient's position, the underestimation of drainage in the case of a flat renographic curve, and the difficulties of interpretation in the case of a small, not well functioning kidney. CONCLUSION: There is an urgent need for better standardisation in estimating the quality of drainage.
PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to evaluate the inter-observer reproducibility in reporting on renal drainage obtained during (99m)Tc MAG3 renography in children, when already processed data are offered to the observers. METHODS: Because web site facilities were used for communication, 57 observers from five continents participated in the study. Twenty-three renograms, including furosemide stimulation and posterect postmicturition views, covering various patterns of drainage, were submitted to the observers. Images, curves and quantitative parameters were provided. Good or almost good drainage, partial drainage and poor or no drainage were the three possible responses for each kidney. RESULTS: An important bias was observed among the observers, some of them more systematically reporting the drainage as being good, while others had a general tendency to consider the drainage as poor. This resulted in rather poor inter-observer reproducibility, as for more than half of the kidneys, less than 80% of the observers agreed on one of the three responses. Analysis of the individual cases identified some obvious causes of discrepancy: the absence of a clear limit between partial and good or almost good drainage, the fact of including or neglecting the effect of micturition and change of patient's position, the underestimation of drainage in the case of a flat renographic curve, and the difficulties of interpretation in the case of a small, not well functioning kidney. CONCLUSION: There is an urgent need for better standardisation in estimating the quality of drainage.
Authors: I Gordon; P Colarinha; J Fettich; S Fischer; J Frökier; K Hahn; L Kabasakal; M Mitjavila; P Olivier; A Piepsz; U Porn; R Sixt; J van Velzen Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Date: 2001-03
Authors: Emmanuel Durand; M Donald Blaufox; Keith E Britton; Ove Carlsen; Philip Cosgriff; Eugene Fine; John Fleming; Cyril Nimmon; Amy Piepsz; Alain Prigent; Martin Samal Journal: Semin Nucl Med Date: 2008-01 Impact factor: 4.446