BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Urine sediment interpretation is frequently used in the evaluation of patients with kidney disease. There has been no systematic evaluation of the reliability of this diagnostic maneuver. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: Digital photographs of urine sediment images were acquired from 165 consecutive patients being evaluated by the nephrology consultation service at a tertiary care hospital. Urine sediment images of 100 patients were randomly selected; 86 patients had images that were deemed to be of sufficient quality, and one image per patient was chosen for inclusion in an internet-based questionnaire. For each image, the presence or absence of 14 potential urinary structures was ascertained. Ten nephrologists (senior readers [n = 3]: >10 yr of experience; intermediate readers [n = 3]: 1 to 10 yr of experience; and junior readers [n = 4]: first year of practice) completed the questionnaire. For each urinary structure, we measured the rate of complete agreement among the readers as well as the kappa statistic as a marker of agreement beyond chance. RESULTS: Unanimous agreement was highest (79.1%) regarding the presence of broad and fatty casts and poorest (31.4%) for the identification of dysmorphic red blood cells and white blood cells. Interobserver agreement was best for squamous epithelial cells (kappa = 0.54) and hyaline casts (kappa = 0.52) and worst for transitional epithelial cells (kappa = 0.14) and fatty casts (kappa = 0.06). When assessed within strata of physician experience, interobserver agreement was not associated with seniority. CONCLUSIONS: Nephrologists achieved slight to moderate agreement in the identification of structures that are commonly observed in the urine sediment.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Urine sediment interpretation is frequently used in the evaluation of patients with kidney disease. There has been no systematic evaluation of the reliability of this diagnostic maneuver. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: Digital photographs of urine sediment images were acquired from 165 consecutive patients being evaluated by the nephrology consultation service at a tertiary care hospital. Urine sediment images of 100 patients were randomly selected; 86 patients had images that were deemed to be of sufficient quality, and one image per patient was chosen for inclusion in an internet-based questionnaire. For each image, the presence or absence of 14 potential urinary structures was ascertained. Ten nephrologists (senior readers [n = 3]: >10 yr of experience; intermediate readers [n = 3]: 1 to 10 yr of experience; and junior readers [n = 4]: first year of practice) completed the questionnaire. For each urinary structure, we measured the rate of complete agreement among the readers as well as the kappa statistic as a marker of agreement beyond chance. RESULTS: Unanimous agreement was highest (79.1%) regarding the presence of broad and fatty casts and poorest (31.4%) for the identification of dysmorphic red blood cells and white blood cells. Interobserver agreement was best for squamous epithelial cells (kappa = 0.54) and hyaline casts (kappa = 0.52) and worst for transitional epithelial cells (kappa = 0.14) and fatty casts (kappa = 0.06). When assessed within strata of physician experience, interobserver agreement was not associated with seniority. CONCLUSIONS: Nephrologists achieved slight to moderate agreement in the identification of structures that are commonly observed in the urine sediment.
Authors: C Phillips; P J Henderson; L Mandel; S Kim; D Schaad; M Cooper; C Bien; A Orkand; M H Wener; J S Fine; M L Astion Journal: Clin Chem Date: 1998-08 Impact factor: 8.327
Authors: R Kumar; R Alpern; T Berl; R Blantz; R Chevalier; T Hostetter; N Madias; D Salant; R Wiggins; W Bennett; A Chapman; G Ekonyan; R Falk; F J Gennari; J H Helderman; K Hruska; A Levey; M Lindheimer; R Miller; A Nissenson; S Schwab; T Schwab; R Schwartz; C Wilcox Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 1997-06 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Mariana Cardenas-Gonzalez; Anand Srivastava; Mira Pavkovic; Vanesa Bijol; Helmut G Rennke; Isaac E Stillman; Xiaolan Zhang; Samir Parikh; Brad H Rovin; Maryam Afkarian; Ian H de Boer; Jonathan Himmelfarb; Sushrut S Waikar; Vishal S Vaidya Journal: Clin Chem Date: 2017-06-30 Impact factor: 8.327
Authors: Annalisa M Hernandez; Graham E A Bilbrough; Dennis B DeNicola; Celine Myrick; Suzanne Edwards; Jeremy M Hammond; Alex N Myers; Johanna C Heseltine; Karen Russell; Marco Giraldi; Mary B Nabity Journal: J Vet Intern Med Date: 2018-12-03 Impact factor: 3.333
Authors: Jay L Koyner; Amit X Garg; Heather Thiessen-Philbrook; Steven G Coca; Lloyd G Cantley; Aldo Peixoto; Cary S Passik; Kwangik Hong; Chirag R Parikh Journal: BMC Nephrol Date: 2014-07-04 Impact factor: 2.388