ArticleRevista medica del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social2023
[Interobserver agreement in the diagnosis of bladder outlet obstruction in women].
Article in Revista medica del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Interobserver Agreement of Filling Cystometry Parameters in Children With Neurogenic Lower Urinary Tract Dysfunction.International neurourology journal · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The diagnosis of bladder outlet obstruction (BOO) in women is a challenge for functional urology. In Mexico there are few data that report the prevalence of OTSV in women, being up to 24% in a group of patients. Objective: The aim of this study is to compare six different definitions of bladder outlet obstruction and evaluate the interobserver agreement in an educational setting. Material and Methods: Urodynamic studies (UDS) of women with and without diagnosis of BOO were retrospectively assesed. Farrar, Chassagne, Lemack, Defreitas, Blavais and Groutz, Solomon-Greenwell definitions were evaluated. All UDS were independently reviewed by 5 observers. The easiest, the hardest and the fastest were chosen. Interobserver agreement to classify the patients as obstructed was assessed by kappa reliability statistical analysis. We classified the type of mistakes the participants made; error of interpretation and miscalculation. Results: A total of 28 urodynamic studies were reviewed. All observers had a substantial agreement (0.64-0.78) to classify BOO using all but Lemack and Solomon-Greenwell definitions. A total 120 errors from 840 responses were found; 45.8% errors of interpretation of UDS and 54.1% miscalculation of the equation. Finally, all the participants chose the Solomon-Greenwell was the most difficult definition. Conclusion: Chassagne, Defreitas and Farrar definitions proved substantial interobserver agreement. Solomon-Greenwell and Lemack´s definitions had the highest number of pitfalls and the lowest level of agreement.
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.