Interobserver variation of prostatic volume estimation with digital rectal examination by urological staffs with different experiences
- PMID: 15663803
- DOI: 10.1590/s1677-55382004000600003
Interobserver variation of prostatic volume estimation with digital rectal examination by urological staffs with different experiences
Abstract
Purpose: To compare the accuracy of estimating prostatic volume with digital rectal examination (DRE) by urological staffs with different experiences. Measurement of prostatic volume with transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) serves as the reference standard.
Materials and methods: Thirty-nine consecutive male patients admitted with acute urinary retention had their prostatic volume estimated with DRE by a urology junior trainee, a urology higher trainee and a trained urologist. All patients had TRUS to measure their prostatic volumes. Pearson correlation coefficients (r) were used to assess the relationships between the prostatic volume measured with TRUS and that estimated with DRE by the 3 urological staffs. Wilcoxon signed ranks tests were used to compare the discrepancies between the prostatic volume measured with TRUS and that estimated with DRE for the 3 Urological staffs, and to assess the inter-observer differences of these discrepancies.
Results: The correlation coefficients for the 3 urological staffs were r = 0.573 for the urology junior trainee, r = 0.541 for the urology higher trainee, and r = 0.640 for the trained urologist. The median discrepancies between the prostatic volume measured with TRUS and that estimated with DRE were -9.1 mL for the urology junior trainee, -1.3 mL for the urology higher trainee and 0.9 mL for the trained urologist. These discrepancies were statistically significant only in the case of urology junior trainee (p = 0.015, Wilcoxon signed ranks test). The difference in these discrepancies was statistically significant only between the urology junior trainee and the trained urologist (p = 0.003, Wilcoxon signed ranks test).
Conclusions: The trained urologist was more accurate in estimating prostatic volume with DRE than the urology junior trainee.
Similar articles
-
Interexaminer reliability and validity of a three-dimensional model to assess prostate volume by digital rectal examination.Urology. 2001 Jun;57(6):1087-92. doi: 10.1016/s0090-4295(01)00965-7. Urology. 2001. PMID: 11377314 Clinical Trial.
-
Correlation between prostate size estimated by digital rectal examination and measured by transrectal ultrasound.Urology. 1997 Apr;49(4):548-57. doi: 10.1016/s0090-4295(97)00031-9. Urology. 1997. PMID: 9111624 Clinical Trial.
-
Estimation of clinically significant prostate volumes by digital rectal examination: a comparative prospective study.Can J Urol. 2011 Dec;18(6):6025-30. Can J Urol. 2011. PMID: 22166330
-
Accurate determination of prostate size via digital rectal examination and transrectal ultrasound.Urology. 1998 Apr;51(4A Suppl):19-22. doi: 10.1016/s0090-4295(98)00051-x. Urology. 1998. PMID: 9586592 Review.
-
[Endosonography of the prostate].Urologe A. 1991 Nov;30(6):370-7. Urologe A. 1991. PMID: 1722920 Review. German.
Cited by
-
The Utility of Digital Rectal Examination in Estimating Prostate Volume in a Rural Hospital Setting.Niger J Surg. 2015 Jul-Dec;21(2):111-4. doi: 10.4103/1117-6806.162570. Niger J Surg. 2015. PMID: 26425063 Free PMC article.
-
Digital rectal examination standardization for inexperienced hands: teaching medical students.Adv Urol. 2013;2013:797096. doi: 10.1155/2013/797096. Epub 2013 Sep 19. Adv Urol. 2013. PMID: 24170997 Free PMC article.
-
Digital assessment and quantification of pelvic organ prolapse (DPOP-Q): a randomised cross-over diagnostic agreement trial.Int Urogynecol J. 2016 Mar;27(3):433-7. doi: 10.1007/s00192-015-2841-3. Epub 2015 Sep 30. Int Urogynecol J. 2016. PMID: 26423265 Clinical Trial.
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical