ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2018
Interobserver agreement in perineal ultrasound measurement of the anovaginal distance: a methodological study.
Article in International urogynecology journal, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Anovaginal distance and obstetric anal sphincter injury: a prospective observational study.International urogynecology journal · 2019Observational
- Maternal Body Mass Index and Anovaginal Distance in Active Phase of Term Labor.BioMed research international · 2018Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisObjective outcome measures of the extent of laceration at delivery are needed. In this study we evaluated and describe here a method for learning perineal ultrasound measurement of the anovaginal distance (AVD). The learning period needed for examiners proficient in vaginal ultrasound examination and the interobserver agreement after reaching proficiency in AVD measurement were determined. The hypothesis was that the method is feasible to learn and reproducible for use in further research.
methodsThe method was taught by an examiner experienced in perineal ultrasonography. The distance between the mucosal margin of the internal anal sphincter was measured with a vaginal probe. The studied examiners measured the AVD until similar results (±5 mm) were achieved. The AVD in 40 women was then measured and documented by two examiners who were blinded to each other's results. Interobserver agreement was calculated using the kappa score.
resultsExaminers with previous experience in vaginal ultrasonography had learned the method after performing five sets of comeasurements. The AVD measurements after the learning period showed almost perfect agreement (κ = 0.87) between the examiners.
conclusionsThe method for perineal ultrasound measurement of AVD was learned quickly with high interobserver agreement. The method is feasible to learn and reproducible for use in further research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.