title: Prospective evaluation of interobserver diagnostic agreement for focal urinary bladder wall abnormalities detected by ultrasound.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  The interobserver variability of the sonographic assessment of Focal Bladder Wall Abnormalities (FBWA) between two physicians with different levels of experience was evaluated prospectively.
  
  
  METHODS
  In the same session the two operators examined independently the urinary bladder of 87 consecutive patients (Mean Age 68 yrs; range 33-80; 75 Males; 15 Females) who underwent cystoscopy within 1-2 days. Before beginning the study, the two observers standardized the process for US exam. Weighted kappa statistics were used to determine the degree of agreement as to the presence, size, location and number of FBWA detected at cystoscopy.
  
  
  RESULTS
  the highest level of agreement (k = 1) was reached on the presence of FBWA, whereas a substantial agreement was reached on size (k = 0.78), number (k = 0.72) and location (k = 0.62) of FBWA.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  In this study the gap in US experience between two operators did not emerge in assessing FBWA, provided a standardized technical approach is pursued.
authors: Diagnostic and Interventional Ultrasound Unit, Camilliani Hospital "S. Maria della Pietà", Casoria, Naples, Italy.
authors: G
authors: G
authors: Francica
authors: F
authors: F
authors: Scarano
authors: S A
authors: SA
authors: Bellini
authors: A
authors: A
authors: Miragliuolo
keywords: Bladder cancer; Interobserver variability; Ultrasound; Urinary bladder
references: Eur Urol. 1990;17(1):17-9
references: 2180718
references: Acta Radiol. 2004 Jul;45(4):481-6
references: 15323405
references: Scand J Urol Nephrol. 1986;20(4):275-8
references: 3544204
references: Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2002 May;84(3):203-5
references: 12092877
references: AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010 Jan;194(1):151-6
references: 20028917
references: J Urol. 1984 Jul;132(1):19-20
references: 6726954
references: J Urol. 1997 Jul;158(1):59-61
references: 9186323
references: Radiology. 1984 Oct;153(1):223-6
references: 6473785
references: Am Fam Physician. 2008 Aug 1;78(3):347-52
references: 18711950
references: J Urol. 1986 Jul;136(1):32-4
references: 3520026
references: J Urol. 2003 Aug;170(2 Pt 1):438-41
references: 12853794
references: Br J Urol. 1986 Oct;58(5):520-2
references: 3535989
references: J Clin Pathol. 2002 Dec;55(12):900-5
references: 12461053
references: J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2009 Jan-Feb;33(1):96-100
references: 19188794
references: Biometrics. 1977 Mar;33(1):159-74
references: 843571
references: AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003 Nov;181(5):1341-7
references: 14573431
references: Clin Radiol. 2008 Dec;63(12):1317-25
references: 18996261
references: J Ultrasound Med. 1995 Feb;14(2):129-33
references: 8568958
references: Urology. 2001 Apr;57(4):604-10
references: 11306357
references: J Ultrasound Med. 2008 Jun;27(6):887-94
references: 18499848
references: Rev Urol. 2004;6 Suppl 1:S32-7
references: 16985853
references: AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002 Sep;179(3):763-8
references: 12185059
references: Br J Urol. 1989 Oct;64(4):409-11
references: 2684336
references: AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002 Jun;178(6):1483-8
references: 12034625
references: Radiology. 2009 Feb;250(2):309-23
references: 19188307
references: Radiographics. 2003 Nov-Dec;23(6):1441-55; discussion 1455-6
references: 14615555
references: J Urol. 1981 Jul;126(1):31-3
references: 7253074
references: Abdom Imaging. 2003 Jan-Feb;28(1):103-9
references: 12483397
references: J Ultrasound Med. 2008 Jan;27(1):45-53
references: 18096730
references: Prog Urol. 1997 Feb;7(1):51-5
references: 9116739