Comparison of Reliability of the RENAL Nephrometry Score Between Radiologists and Urologists
CUA Online Library. Shahrour K. 06/24/13; 31258; MP-03.01
Disclosure(s): None
CLICK HERE TO LOGIN
REGULAR CONTENT
REGULAR CONTENT
Login now to access Regular content available to all registered users.
Abstract
Rate & Comment (0)
Introduction and Objective:
Previous studies have shown high reliability in assigning a RENAL score between urologists, but none have reported on the inter-observer reliability between urologists and radiologists. The purpose of this study was to test the hypothesis that the RENAL score is a reliable and reproducible measure between urologists and radiologists.
METHODS:
A retrospective review of computerized tomography (CT) scans of patients with renal masses who had presented to our institution within the past five years was reviewed. Masses were excluded in patients with congenital renal anomalies such as APCKD, horseshoe, etc. Masses on CT scans that met the inclusion criteria were assigned a RENAL nephrometry score by 5 full-time faculty members; 3 radiologists and 2 urologists. Each observer documented detailed RENAL score for each mass independently. The Krippendorff's alpha coefficient was used to detect inter-rater reliability of ratings done by the different examiners. Paired t-test was used to compare between radiologists and urologists groups.
RESULTS:
A total of 64 patients and 72 distinct renal tumors were analyzed in this study. Mean RENAL nephrometry score was 7.8±2.0 and 8.4±2.1 by the radiologists and urologists, respectively. Mean difference between both groups was 0.60 points (p<0.05, Confidence Interval 0.39-0.80). Reliability coefficient for each component of the RENAL score and total score were 0.89 (R), 0.41 (E), 0.58 (N), 0.43 (A), 0.65 (L), and 0.77 respectively. Reliability coefficients for both groups were high but that between radiologists was higher high but that between radiologists was higher than that between urologists (0.81 vs. 0.73).
CONCLUSIONS:
Higher inter-observer correlation among radiologists than among urologists is evidence that adoption of such score by radiology is feasible as a means of standardizing the reporting of renal masses.
Previous studies have shown high reliability in assigning a RENAL score between urologists, but none have reported on the inter-observer reliability between urologists and radiologists. The purpose of this study was to test the hypothesis that the RENAL score is a reliable and reproducible measure between urologists and radiologists.
METHODS:
A retrospective review of computerized tomography (CT) scans of patients with renal masses who had presented to our institution within the past five years was reviewed. Masses were excluded in patients with congenital renal anomalies such as APCKD, horseshoe, etc. Masses on CT scans that met the inclusion criteria were assigned a RENAL nephrometry score by 5 full-time faculty members; 3 radiologists and 2 urologists. Each observer documented detailed RENAL score for each mass independently. The Krippendorff's alpha coefficient was used to detect inter-rater reliability of ratings done by the different examiners. Paired t-test was used to compare between radiologists and urologists groups.
RESULTS:
A total of 64 patients and 72 distinct renal tumors were analyzed in this study. Mean RENAL nephrometry score was 7.8±2.0 and 8.4±2.1 by the radiologists and urologists, respectively. Mean difference between both groups was 0.60 points (p<0.05, Confidence Interval 0.39-0.80). Reliability coefficient for each component of the RENAL score and total score were 0.89 (R), 0.41 (E), 0.58 (N), 0.43 (A), 0.65 (L), and 0.77 respectively. Reliability coefficients for both groups were high but that between radiologists was higher high but that between radiologists was higher than that between urologists (0.81 vs. 0.73).
CONCLUSIONS:
Higher inter-observer correlation among radiologists than among urologists is evidence that adoption of such score by radiology is feasible as a means of standardizing the reporting of renal masses.
Introduction and Objective:
Previous studies have shown high reliability in assigning a RENAL score between urologists, but none have reported on the inter-observer reliability between urologists and radiologists. The purpose of this study was to test the hypothesis that the RENAL score is a reliable and reproducible measure between urologists and radiologists.
METHODS:
A retrospective review of computerized tomography (CT) scans of patients with renal masses who had presented to our institution within the past five years was reviewed. Masses were excluded in patients with congenital renal anomalies such as APCKD, horseshoe, etc. Masses on CT scans that met the inclusion criteria were assigned a RENAL nephrometry score by 5 full-time faculty members; 3 radiologists and 2 urologists. Each observer documented detailed RENAL score for each mass independently. The Krippendorff's alpha coefficient was used to detect inter-rater reliability of ratings done by the different examiners. Paired t-test was used to compare between radiologists and urologists groups.
RESULTS:
A total of 64 patients and 72 distinct renal tumors were analyzed in this study. Mean RENAL nephrometry score was 7.8±2.0 and 8.4±2.1 by the radiologists and urologists, respectively. Mean difference between both groups was 0.60 points (p<0.05, Confidence Interval 0.39-0.80). Reliability coefficient for each component of the RENAL score and total score were 0.89 (R), 0.41 (E), 0.58 (N), 0.43 (A), 0.65 (L), and 0.77 respectively. Reliability coefficients for both groups were high but that between radiologists was higher high but that between radiologists was higher than that between urologists (0.81 vs. 0.73).
CONCLUSIONS:
Higher inter-observer correlation among radiologists than among urologists is evidence that adoption of such score by radiology is feasible as a means of standardizing the reporting of renal masses.
Previous studies have shown high reliability in assigning a RENAL score between urologists, but none have reported on the inter-observer reliability between urologists and radiologists. The purpose of this study was to test the hypothesis that the RENAL score is a reliable and reproducible measure between urologists and radiologists.
METHODS:
A retrospective review of computerized tomography (CT) scans of patients with renal masses who had presented to our institution within the past five years was reviewed. Masses were excluded in patients with congenital renal anomalies such as APCKD, horseshoe, etc. Masses on CT scans that met the inclusion criteria were assigned a RENAL nephrometry score by 5 full-time faculty members; 3 radiologists and 2 urologists. Each observer documented detailed RENAL score for each mass independently. The Krippendorff's alpha coefficient was used to detect inter-rater reliability of ratings done by the different examiners. Paired t-test was used to compare between radiologists and urologists groups.
RESULTS:
A total of 64 patients and 72 distinct renal tumors were analyzed in this study. Mean RENAL nephrometry score was 7.8±2.0 and 8.4±2.1 by the radiologists and urologists, respectively. Mean difference between both groups was 0.60 points (p<0.05, Confidence Interval 0.39-0.80). Reliability coefficient for each component of the RENAL score and total score were 0.89 (R), 0.41 (E), 0.58 (N), 0.43 (A), 0.65 (L), and 0.77 respectively. Reliability coefficients for both groups were high but that between radiologists was higher high but that between radiologists was higher than that between urologists (0.81 vs. 0.73).
CONCLUSIONS:
Higher inter-observer correlation among radiologists than among urologists is evidence that adoption of such score by radiology is feasible as a means of standardizing the reporting of renal masses.
Code of conduct/disclaimer available in General Terms & Conditions
{{ help_message }}
{{filter}}