Renganathan Arasee, Cartwright Rufus, Cardozo Linda, Robinson Dudley, Srikrishna Sushma
Department of Urogynaecology, King's College Hospital, Denmark Hill, London, UK.
Neurourol Urodyn. 2009;28(5):380-4. doi: 10.1002/nau.20679.
To review the quality of urodynamic traces collected as part of a multi-center Phase II drug trial of a medication for overactive bladder (OAB), in order to assess adherence to the Good Urodynamic Practice (GUP) guidelines. To assess inter-rater reliability (IRR) for the numerical cystometrogram variables, and for the diagnosis of detrusor overactivity (DO).
Two central reviewers assessed 50 cystometrograms, recording the presence or absence of DO and assessing compliance with GUP guidelines. Three central reviewers independently assessed 20% of cystometrograms submitted, for numerical variables. IRR of central and peripheral assessments were compared with intra-class correlation (ICC) and Cohen's unweighted kappa statistics.
There was inconsistent adherence to GUP guidelines, because of differences in urodynamic equipment and practice. ICC between numerical variables assessed by the three central reviewers were excellent ranging between 0.830 and 0.997 (P all < or =0.001). ICC between numerical variables assessed by peripheral and central reviewers were good to excellent, ranging between 0.624 and 0.994 (P all < or =0.05). Central reviewers showed excellent agreement in the assessment of DO (kappa = 0.83). However central and peripheral reviewers showed poor agreement in the assessment of DO (kappa = 0.24).
Without standardization of equipment and training, adherence to GUP guidelines is problematic. Cystometric pressure and volume variables can however be reliably assessed in multi-center studies. DO cannot be reliably observed by interpreting the cystometrogram trace in isolation. Objective assessment of DO may therefore be unsuitable for multi-center studies reliant on central reporting of traces. Neurourol. Urodynam. 28:380-384, 2009. (c) 2008 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
回顾作为治疗膀胱过度活动症(OAB)的一种药物多中心II期药物试验一部分所收集的尿动力学记录的质量,以评估对良好尿动力学实践(GUP)指南的遵循情况。评估膀胱测压图数值变量以及逼尿肌过度活动(DO)诊断的评分者间可靠性(IRR)。
两名中心审阅者评估了50份膀胱测压图,记录DO的有无并评估对GUP指南的遵循情况。三名中心审阅者独立评估所提交膀胱测压图的20%,用于数值变量评估。将中心和外周评估的IRR与组内相关系数(ICC)和科恩无加权kappa统计量进行比较。
由于尿动力学设备和实践的差异,对GUP指南的遵循情况不一致。三名中心审阅者评估的数值变量之间的ICC非常好,范围在0.830至0.997之间(所有P值均≤0.001)。外周和中心审阅者评估的数值变量之间的ICC良好至非常好,范围在0.624至0.994之间(所有P值均≤0.05)。中心审阅者在DO评估方面显示出极好的一致性(kappa = 0.83)。然而,中心和外周审阅者在DO评估方面显示出较差的一致性(kappa = 0.24)。
如果没有设备标准化和培训,对GUP指南的遵循存在问题。然而,在多中心研究中可以可靠地评估膀胱测压压力和容量变量。不能通过单独解释膀胱测压图记录来可靠地观察DO。因此,DO的客观评估可能不适用于依赖中心报告记录的多中心研究。《神经泌尿学与尿动力学》28:380 - 384,2009年。(c)2008威利 - 利斯公司。