Shang-Jen Chang1, Stephen S D Yang. 1. Division of Urology, Buddhist Tzu Chi General Hospital, Taipei Branch, Taipei, Taiwan.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the inter-observer and intra-observer agreement on the interpretation of uroflowmetry curves of children. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Healthy kindergarten children were enrolled for evaluation of uroflowmetry. Uroflowmetry curves were classified as bell-shaped, tower, plateau, staccato and interrupted. Only the bell-shaped curves were regarded as normal. Two urodynamists evaluated the curves independently after reviewing the definitions of the different types of uroflowmetry curve. The senior urodynamist evaluated the curves twice 3 months apart. The final conclusion was made when consensus was reached. Agreement among observers was analyzed using kappa statistics. RESULTS: Of 190 uroflowmetry curves eligible for analysis, the intra-observer agreement in interpreting each type of curve and interpreting normalcy vs abnormality was good (kappa=0.71 and 0.68, respectively). Very good inter-observer agreement (kappa=0.81) on normalcy and good inter-observer agreement (kappa=0.73) on types of uroflowmetry were observed. Poor inter-observer agreement existed on the classification of specific types of abnormal uroflowmetry curves (kappa=0.07). CONCLUSIONS: Uroflowmetry is a good screening tool for normalcy of kindergarten children, while not a good tool to define the specific types of abnormal uroflowmetry.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the inter-observer and intra-observer agreement on the interpretation of uroflowmetry curves of children. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Healthy kindergarten children were enrolled for evaluation of uroflowmetry. Uroflowmetry curves were classified as bell-shaped, tower, plateau, staccato and interrupted. Only the bell-shaped curves were regarded as normal. Two urodynamists evaluated the curves independently after reviewing the definitions of the different types of uroflowmetry curve. The senior urodynamist evaluated the curves twice 3 months apart. The final conclusion was made when consensus was reached. Agreement among observers was analyzed using kappa statistics. RESULTS: Of 190 uroflowmetry curves eligible for analysis, the intra-observer agreement in interpreting each type of curve and interpreting normalcy vs abnormality was good (kappa=0.71 and 0.68, respectively). Very good inter-observer agreement (kappa=0.81) on normalcy and good inter-observer agreement (kappa=0.73) on types of uroflowmetry were observed. Poor inter-observer agreement existed on the classification of specific types of abnormal uroflowmetry curves (kappa=0.07). CONCLUSIONS: Uroflowmetry is a good screening tool for normalcy of kindergarten children, while not a good tool to define the specific types of abnormal uroflowmetry.