Inter-observer agreement in the estimation of bladder pressure using a penile cuff

• Published in: Neurourology and urodynamics 2003, Vol.22 (4), p.296-300
• Main Authors: Drinnan, Michael J., McIntosh, Stuart L., Robson, Wendy A., Pickard, Robert S., Ramsden, Peter D., Griffiths, Clive J.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; bladder pressure; Humans; inter-observer agreement; Male; Manometry - instrumentation; Manometry - standards; Manometry - statistics & numerical data; Middle Aged; non-invasive; Observer Variation; penile cuff; Penis; Pressure; Reference Standards; Urinary Bladder - physiology; Urination Disorders - diagnosis; Urination Disorders - physiopathology; Urodynamics - physiology; Urology - instrumentation; Urology - methods
• ISSN: 0733-2467; 1520-6777
• DOI: 10.1002/nau.10133

Aims Objective data are useful in quantifying a patient's lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS). We are investigating the use of an inflatable penile cuff to obstruct flow progressively during voiding, and thereby determine the pressure pcuff,int at which flow is interrupted. The aim of this study was to determine the agreement between experienced observers in their estimates of pcuff,int. Methods We recorded 486 cuff inflation cycles during 142 voids from 42 subjects recruited from urology out‐patient's and prostate assessment clinics. Each inflation cycle was assessed independently by three experienced observers, a total of 1,458 ratings. According to our standard assessment procedure, the observers (i) indicated whether the inflation should be analyzed, (ii) estimated pcuff,int for those inflation cycles judged suitable for analysis, and (iii) discarded measurements that were clearly inconsistent with others from the same voiding cycle. Results Overall, 689 of the 1,458 ratings (45%) were excluded, with just 4% of all ratings discarded for inconsistency. For 385 of the 486 inflation cycles (79%) there was complete agreement that the cycle should or should not be analyzed. Thereafter, for the 262 inflation cycles analyzed by two or three observers, the overall SD error in measurements of pcuff,int was 4.6 cm H2O. Conclusions We conclude that there is good agreement between experienced observers in their interpretation of data from the cuff test. For practical purposes, there is no need for multiple observers in the clinical application of the cuff method. Neurourol. Urodynam. 22:296–300, 2003. © 2003 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.