ArticleJAMA network open2020
Assessment of Interobserver Reliability of Nephrologist Examination of Urine Sediment.
Article in JAMA network open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.
- Factors associated with clinically significant nephritis in systemic lupus erythematosus patients who present with glomerular hematuria: a cross-sectional study.Rheumatology international · 2026Article
- Dipstick Proteinuria and Hematuria as Triggers for Manual Microscopic Review in Nephrology Patients.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- From past to present to future: Terlipressin and hepatorenal syndrome-acute kidney injury.Hepatology (Baltimore, Md.) · 2025Review
- Human judgment error in the intensive care unit: a perspective on bias and noise.Critical care (London, England) · 2025Review
- Changes in the composition of urine over six hours using urine dipstick analysis and automated microscopy.BMC nephrology · 2025Article
- A stain reclaimed: the legacy of Drs Prescott and Brodie.Nephrology, dialysis, transplantation : official publication of the European Dialysis and Transplant Association - European Renal Association · 2024Article
- Acute kidney injury in patients with cirrhosis: Acute Disease Quality Initiative (ADQI) and International Club of Ascites (ICA) joint multidisciplinary consensus meeting.Journal of hepatology · 2024Review
- Sepsis-associated acute kidney injury: consensus report of the 28th Acute Disease Quality Initiative workgroup.Nature reviews. Nephrology · 2023Review
- Comparison of the Anvajo Vet Fluidlab 1 urine sediment analyzer to manual microscopy and Idexx SediVue analysis for analysis of urine samples from cats and dogs.Journal of veterinary diagnostic investigation : official publication of the American Association of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians, Inc · 2022Article
- Inter-rater reliability assessment for the new-born screening quality assurance.Biochemia medica · 2022Article
- Concomitant Identification of Muddy Brown Granular Casts and Low Fractional Excretion of Urinary Sodium in AKI.Kidney360 · 2022Observational
- Urine Sediment Exam Provides More Diagnostic Information in AKI than Novel Urinary Biomarkers: PRO.Kidney360 · 2022Article
- Urine Sediment Exam Provides More Diagnostic Information in AKI than Novel Urinary Biomarkers: CON.Kidney360 · 2022Article
- More than meets the I(ris): Use of manual urine microscopy to complement automated findings in acute kidney injury.Practical laboratory medicine · 2022Review
- Comparison of IDEXX SediVue DxJournal of veterinary internal medicine · 2021Article
- Diagnostic Utility of Urine Microscopy in Kidney Diseases.Indian journal of nephrologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Urine sediment microscopy is commonly performed during the evaluation of kidney disease. Interobserver reliability of nephrologists' urine sediment examination has not been well studied. Objective: Assess interobserver reliability of the urine sediment examination. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this diagnostic test study, urine samples were prospectively collected from a convenience sample of adult patients from an academic hospital in the United States undergoing kidney biopsy from July 11, 2018, to March 20, 2019. Digital images and videos of urine sediment findings were captured using a bright-field microscope. These images and videos along with urine dipstick results were incorporated in online surveys and sent to expert nephrologists at 15 US teaching hospitals. They were asked to identify individual sediment findings and the most likely underlying disease process. Exposures: Urine dipstick results and urine sediment images from patients undergoing native kidney biopsy. Main Outcomes and Measures: Interobserver reliability of urine sediment microscopy findings estimated by overall percent agreement and Fleiss κ coefficients. Secondary outcomes included concordance of diagnoses suspected by nephrologists with corresponding kidney biopsy results. Results: In total, 10 surveys from 10 patients containing 76 study questions on individual features were sent to 21 nephrologists, 14 (67%) of whom completed them all. Their combined 1064 responses were analyzed. Overall percent agreement for casts was an estimated 59% (95% CI, 50%-69%), κ = 0.52 (95% CI, 0.42-0.62). For other sediment findings, overall percent agreement was an estimated 69% (95% CI, 61%-77%), κ = 0.65 (95% CI, 0.56-0.73). The κ estimates ranged from 0.13 (95% CI, 0.10-0.17) for mixed cellular casts to 0.90 (95% CI, 0.87-0.94) for squamous epithelial cells. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, substantial variability occurred in the interpretation of urine sediment findings, even among expert nephrologists. Educational or technological innovations may help improve the urine sediment as a diagnostic tool.
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.