Obstetrics & Gynecology Track the topics, authors and articles important to you
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Obstetrics & Gynecology 2006;108:315-323
© 2006 by The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Whiteside, J. L.
Right arrow Articles by Daneshgari, F.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Whiteside, J. L.
Right arrow Articles by Daneshgari, F.
Related Collections
Right arrow Urogynecology

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Reliability and Agreement of Urodynamics Interpretations in a Female Pelvic Medicine Center

James L. Whiteside, MD1, Adonis Hijaz, MD1, Peter B. Imrey, PhD1, Matthew D. Barber, MD1, Marie F. Paraiso, MD1, Raymond R. Rackley, MD1, Sandip P. Vasavada, MD1, Mark D. Walters, MD1 and Firouz Daneshgari, MD1

From the1 Center for Female Pelvic Medicine and Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the reliability and interobserver consistency of urodynamic interpretations of female bladder and urethral function.

METHODS: Three urogynecologists and three female urologists at a tertiary care medical center reviewed masked, abstracted clinical and urodynamic information from 100 charts, selected for adequate completeness from a consecutive series of 135 women referred for urodynamic testing. For each of the 100 cases, the reviewers assigned International Continence Society filling and voiding phase diagnoses, and overall clinical diagnoses. Raw agreement proportions and weighted kappa chance-corrected agreement statistics ({kappa}) were used jointly to describe both reliability and interobserver agreement. Reliability was estimated from duplicate reviews, masked and separated by at least 4 months, of each case by each physician. Interobserver agreement was estimated from comparisons of all pairs of responses from different physicians.

RESULTS: For clinical diagnosis of stress incontinence (present, absent, indeterminate), the within- and across-physician weighted {kappa}'s were, respectively, 0.78 and 0.68. Corresponding results were 0.40 and 0.13 for detrusor overactivity without incontinence, 0.58 and 0.38 for detrusor overactivity with incontinence, and 0.51 and 0.26 for voiding dysfunction. Standard errors of each {kappa} were between 0.023 and 0.043.

CONCLUSION: In our group, lower urinary tract diagnoses of stress urinary incontinence from both clinical and urodynamic data demonstrated substantial reliability and interobserver agreement. However, by conventional interpretation of {kappa}-statistics, reliability of diagnoses of detrusor overactivity or voiding dysfunction was only moderate, and interobserver agreement on these diagnoses was no better than fair. Urodynamic interpretations may not be satisfactorily reproducible for these diagnoses.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II-2






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2006 by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.