Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
addClaim

Interobserver agreement in defecography

Authors: A G, Klauser; K H, Ting; E, Mangel; B, Eibl-Eibesfeldt; S A, Müller-Lissner;

Interobserver agreement in defecography

Abstract

This study was designed to test the reproducibility of the diagnostic assessment of defecographies in patients with a suspected disorder of defecation.To evaluate interobserver agreement, 100 defecographic series of patients with complaints suggesting a disordered defecation were evaluated independently by three observers with a standardized questionnaire. After six weeks, a random sample of 35 of 100 defecographies was evaluated a second time with clinical data provided (history, proctologic examination). To evaluate whether the position of residual volume in the rectum would affect agreement, patients with substantial retention either in the upper or lower rectum were also evaluated separately.Total agreement regarding rectocele and internal prolapse was 0.81 and 0.75, respectively (1.0 = complete agreement), and was significantly higher than chance agreement. Total agreement regarding residual volume in the rectum at the end of defecography and clinical relevance of findings was not different from chance agreement, providing clinical data did not significantly improve agreement. When residual volume was situated in the lower rectum, agreement regarding incompleteness of emptying and its clinical relevance was much better (0.93).Interobserver agreement is good regarding the deformation of the rectum during defecography but not different from chance agreement regarding the completeness of evacuation.

Related Organizations
Keywords

Adult, Male, Observer Variation, Hernia, Reproducibility of Results, Rectal Prolapse, Middle Aged, Radiography, Rectal Diseases, Humans, Female, Defecation, Aged

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    31
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Top 10%
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
31
Average
Top 10%
Average
Upload OA version
Are you the author of this publication? Upload your Open Access version to Zenodo!
It’s fast and easy, just two clicks!