尿道下裂的专家分类:外部验证和评估尿道下裂客观阴茎评估(HOPE)评分的一致性。

IF 1.5 3区 医学 Q2 PEDIATRICS
Kellie J Kim, Jin K Kim, Michael E Chua, Jan Michael Silangcruz, Priyank Yadav, Mandy Rickard, Armando J Lorenzo, Nicolas Fernandez
{"title":"尿道下裂的专家分类:外部验证和评估尿道下裂客观阴茎评估(HOPE)评分的一致性。","authors":"Kellie J Kim, Jin K Kim, Michael E Chua, Jan Michael Silangcruz, Priyank Yadav, Mandy Rickard, Armando J Lorenzo, Nicolas Fernandez","doi":"10.1007/s00383-024-05816-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study evaluates the inter-rater agreements of both the Glans-Urethral Meatus-Shaft (GMS) hypospadias score and Hypospadias Objective Penile Evaluation (HOPE) score, aiming to standardize disease classification for consistent agreement in clinically relevant characteristics of hypospadias.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Photos of hypospadias in children were collected from two separate institutions. Three raters scored the photos using GMS and HOPE, excluding penile torsion and curvature assessment in HOPE due to photo limitations.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 528 photos were included. With GMS, Fleiss' multi-rater kappa showed an agreement of 0.745 for glans-urethral plate, 0.869 for meatus, and 0.745 for shaft. For HOPE scores, the agreements were 0.888 for position of meatus, 0.669 for shape of meatus, 0.730 for shape of glans, and 0.708 for the shape of the skin. The lower agreement in the shape of the meatus evaluation may be attributed to the lack of a quantitative classification method in HOPE. Experts rely on their subjective judgment based on the provided example photos and their index patient.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>While there is high agreement among experts when evaluating hypospadias using the GMS and HOPE scoring criteria, only the position of the meatus achieved nearly perfect agreement highlighting that the current scoring systems entail a subjective element in disease classification.</p>","PeriodicalId":19832,"journal":{"name":"Pediatric Surgery International","volume":"40 1","pages":"233"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Expert classification of hypospadias: an external validation and evaluation of agreement for Glans-Urethral Meatus-Shaft (GMS) and Hypospadias Objective Penile Evaluation (HOPE) scores.\",\"authors\":\"Kellie J Kim, Jin K Kim, Michael E Chua, Jan Michael Silangcruz, Priyank Yadav, Mandy Rickard, Armando J Lorenzo, Nicolas Fernandez\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00383-024-05816-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study evaluates the inter-rater agreements of both the Glans-Urethral Meatus-Shaft (GMS) hypospadias score and Hypospadias Objective Penile Evaluation (HOPE) score, aiming to standardize disease classification for consistent agreement in clinically relevant characteristics of hypospadias.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Photos of hypospadias in children were collected from two separate institutions. Three raters scored the photos using GMS and HOPE, excluding penile torsion and curvature assessment in HOPE due to photo limitations.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 528 photos were included. With GMS, Fleiss' multi-rater kappa showed an agreement of 0.745 for glans-urethral plate, 0.869 for meatus, and 0.745 for shaft. For HOPE scores, the agreements were 0.888 for position of meatus, 0.669 for shape of meatus, 0.730 for shape of glans, and 0.708 for the shape of the skin. The lower agreement in the shape of the meatus evaluation may be attributed to the lack of a quantitative classification method in HOPE. Experts rely on their subjective judgment based on the provided example photos and their index patient.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>While there is high agreement among experts when evaluating hypospadias using the GMS and HOPE scoring criteria, only the position of the meatus achieved nearly perfect agreement highlighting that the current scoring systems entail a subjective element in disease classification.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19832,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pediatric Surgery International\",\"volume\":\"40 1\",\"pages\":\"233\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pediatric Surgery International\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00383-024-05816-8\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PEDIATRICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pediatric Surgery International","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00383-024-05816-8","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PEDIATRICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本研究评估了尿道下裂(Glans-Urethral Meatus-Shaft,GMS)评分和尿道下裂客观阴茎评估(Hoppospadias Objective Penile Evaluation,HOPE)评分的评分者之间的一致性,旨在规范疾病分类,使尿道下裂的临床相关特征具有一致的一致性:方法:从两个不同的机构收集儿童尿道下裂的照片。方法:从两家不同的机构收集尿道下裂儿童照片,由三位评分员使用 GMS 和 HOPE 对照片进行评分,由于照片的限制,HOPE 中不包括阴茎扭转和弯曲评估:结果:共纳入 528 张照片。在 GMS 中,Fleiss 的多人 kappa 显示,龟头尿道板的一致性为 0.745,肉冠的一致性为 0.869,阴茎轴的一致性为 0.745。在 HOPE 评分中,肉眼位置的一致性为 0.888,肉眼形状的一致性为 0.669,龟头形状的一致性为 0.730,皮肤形状的一致性为 0.708。肉眼形状评价的一致性较低可能是由于 HOPE 缺乏定量分类方法。专家们根据所提供的示例照片和他们的索引病人进行主观判断:结论:虽然专家们在使用 GMS 和 HOPE 评分标准评估尿道下裂时意见高度一致,但只有肉眼的位置几乎完全一致,这突出表明目前的评分系统在疾病分类方面存在主观因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Expert classification of hypospadias: an external validation and evaluation of agreement for Glans-Urethral Meatus-Shaft (GMS) and Hypospadias Objective Penile Evaluation (HOPE) scores.

Expert classification of hypospadias: an external validation and evaluation of agreement for Glans-Urethral Meatus-Shaft (GMS) and Hypospadias Objective Penile Evaluation (HOPE) scores.

Purpose: This study evaluates the inter-rater agreements of both the Glans-Urethral Meatus-Shaft (GMS) hypospadias score and Hypospadias Objective Penile Evaluation (HOPE) score, aiming to standardize disease classification for consistent agreement in clinically relevant characteristics of hypospadias.

Methods: Photos of hypospadias in children were collected from two separate institutions. Three raters scored the photos using GMS and HOPE, excluding penile torsion and curvature assessment in HOPE due to photo limitations.

Results: A total of 528 photos were included. With GMS, Fleiss' multi-rater kappa showed an agreement of 0.745 for glans-urethral plate, 0.869 for meatus, and 0.745 for shaft. For HOPE scores, the agreements were 0.888 for position of meatus, 0.669 for shape of meatus, 0.730 for shape of glans, and 0.708 for the shape of the skin. The lower agreement in the shape of the meatus evaluation may be attributed to the lack of a quantitative classification method in HOPE. Experts rely on their subjective judgment based on the provided example photos and their index patient.

Conclusions: While there is high agreement among experts when evaluating hypospadias using the GMS and HOPE scoring criteria, only the position of the meatus achieved nearly perfect agreement highlighting that the current scoring systems entail a subjective element in disease classification.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
5.60%
发文量
215
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Pediatric Surgery International is a journal devoted to the publication of new and important information from the entire spectrum of pediatric surgery. The major purpose of the journal is to promote postgraduate training and further education in the surgery of infants and children. The contents will include articles in clinical and experimental surgery, as well as related fields. One section of each issue is devoted to a special topic, with invited contributions from recognized authorities. Other sections will include: -Review articles- Original articles- Technical innovations- Letters to the editor
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信