Actas urologicas espanolas · 2023
Post-Ureteroscopic Lesion Scale to determine ureteral wall damage, not so easy to employ.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Polo R, Canós-Nebot À, Caballero-Romeu J P, Caballero P, Galán-Llopis J A, Soria F, de la Cruz-Conty J E, Tuells J
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To analyze the level of agreement of the Post-Ureteroscopy Lesion Scale (PULS) and the consequences on its application in clinical practice with more reliable statistical data than the one used in the original work.
METHODS: 14 URS and 14 micro-URS were performed in 14 female porcine model. All the procedures were video recorded and an anatomopathological analysis was performed in each ureter. Sixteen urologists (9 endourologists and 7 general urologists) and 4 residents evaluated the ureteral lesions according to the PULS, with degrees 0, 1 and ≥2. The agreement was calculated with percentages, Kendall's W coefficient and the indicators Fleiss' Kappa and Krippendorff's Alpha, while the inter-rater agreement was calculated with Spearman's correlation and Cohen's Kappa.
RESULTS: The percent of agreement was 11.1%. The coefficients were likewise classified as low or very low, with the greatest agreement found among the inexperienced. Also, 50% of the raters did not agree with the rest.
CONCLUSIONS: The low inter-rater agreement, the specificity of the PULS and the clinical-pathological correlation suggests that this scale is not simple, and probably has a long learning curve.
METHODS: 14 URS and 14 micro-URS were performed in 14 female porcine model. All the procedures were video recorded and an anatomopathological analysis was performed in each ureter. Sixteen urologists (9 endourologists and 7 general urologists) and 4 residents evaluated the ureteral lesions according to the PULS, with degrees 0, 1 and ≥2. The agreement was calculated with percentages, Kendall's W coefficient and the indicators Fleiss' Kappa and Krippendorff's Alpha, while the inter-rater agreement was calculated with Spearman's correlation and Cohen's Kappa.
RESULTS: The percent of agreement was 11.1%. The coefficients were likewise classified as low or very low, with the greatest agreement found among the inexperienced. Also, 50% of the raters did not agree with the rest.
CONCLUSIONS: The low inter-rater agreement, the specificity of the PULS and the clinical-pathological correlation suggests that this scale is not simple, and probably has a long learning curve.