A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Quality control in urodynamics: Analysis of an international multi-center study. | LitMetric

Aims: 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).

Methods: 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.

Results: 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).

Conclusion: 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.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/nau.20679DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

central reviewers
20
gup guidelines
16
numerical variables
12
central
8
three central
8
central peripheral
8
adherence gup
8
icc numerical
8
variables assessed
8
reviewers excellent
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!