Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32821922›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2020

Assessment of Interobserver Reliability of Nephrologist Examination of Urine Sediment.

Ragnar Palsson, Mia R Colona, Melanie P Hoenig, Andrew L Lundquist, James E Novak, Mark A Perazella, Sushrut S Waikar

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. 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 · 2024
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. 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 · 2022
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Comparison of IDEXX SediVue DxJournal of veterinary internal medicine · 2021
    Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.

Ragnar PalssonRenal Division, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
Mia R ColonaRenal Division, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
Melanie P HoenigDivision of Nephrology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts.
Andrew L LundquistDivision of Nephrology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
James E NovakDivision of Nephrology, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, Michigan.
Mark A PerazellaSection of Nephrology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.
Sushrut S WaikarRenal Division, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center · USBoston University · USHenry Ford Hospital · USMassachusetts General Hospital · USNational University Hospital of Iceland · ISUniversity Medical Center · USYale University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

AdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNephrologistsObserver VariationProspective StudiesReproducibility of ResultsUrinalysis

Identifiers

PMID32821922
PMCPMC7442930
OpenAlexW3081502802

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.