Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Reliability and Reproducibility of Pediatric Urodynamic Studies

  • Pediatric Bladder Dysfunction (SJ Hodges, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Bladder Dysfunction Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

This report will review the reproducibility and reliability of urodynamic testing and interpretation highlighting recent pediatric literature.

Recent Findings

The reliability of pediatric urodynamic interpretation was previously reported to be poor, echoing reports from multicenter studies where outcomes were challenging to standardize. A pilot study demonstrated significant inter-rater reliability across pediatric urologists with similar training at a single institution. Individual tracing variables showed wide range variability, with lowest correlations seen for the presence of detrusor over activity and EMG activity synergy. An expanded multicenter study confirmed low inter-rater reliability, yet indicated preservation of clinical decision-making. Future work to standardize interpretation may involve computerized modeling and interactive tutorials to demonstrate consensus terminology.

Summary

Pediatric urodynamic interpretation is variable across discrete tracing parameters; however, clinical decision-making is more preserved. Reliable interpretation is needed to minimize variation in clinical care and maximize impact of research focused on urodynamic outcomes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

VUDS:

(video-urodynamic study)

ICCS:

(International Children’s Continence Society)

EMG:

(electromyography)

CDC:

(Centers for Disease Control)

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Bauer SB, Nijman RJ, Drzewiecki BA, Sillen U, Hoebeke P. International Children’s Continence Society standardization report on urodynamic studies of the lower urinary tract in children. Neurourol Urodyn. 2015;34(7):640–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. •• Rosier PF, Schaefer W, Lose G, et al. International Continence Society Good Urodynamic Practices and Terms 2016: Urodynamics, uroflowmetry, cystometry, and pressure-flow study. Neurourol Urodyn 2016. This update defines key terminology, and urodynamic practices.

  3. •• Austin PF, Bauer SB, Bower W, et al. The standardization of terminology of lower urinary tract function in children and adolescents: update report from the standardization committee of the international children’s continence society. Neurourol Urodyn. 2016;35(4):471–81. This paper reviews standard terminology and practices for pediatric urinary symptoms.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Brock JW. Bladder function after fetal surgery for myelomeningocele. Pediatrics. 2015;136(4):e906–13.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Bael A, Verhulst J, Lax H, Hirche H, van Gool JD, European Bladder Dysfunction Study EBC. Investigator bias in urodynamic studies for functional urinary incontinence. J Urol. 2009;182(4 Suppl):1949–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Spinoit AF, Decalf V, Ragolle I, et al. Urodynamic studies in children: standardized transurethral video-urodynamic evaluation. J Pediatr Urol. 2016;12(1):67–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Venhola M, Reunanen M, Taskinen S, Lahdes-Vasama T, Uhari M. Interobserver and intra-observer agreement in interpreting urodynamic measurements in children. J Urol. 2003;169(6):2344–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Zimmern P, Nager CW, Albo M, FitzGerald MP, McDermott S. Interrater reliability of filling cystometrogram interpretation in a multicenter study. J Urol. 2006;175(6):2174–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Frenkl TL, Railkar R, Palcza J, et al. Variability of urodynamic parameters in patients with overactive bladder. Neurourol Urodyn. 2011;30(8):1565–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Virseda M, Salinas J, Esteban M, Mendez S. Reliability of ambulatory urodynamics in patients with spinal cord injuries. Neurourol Urodyn. 2013;32(4):387–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Drzewiecki BA, Bauer SB. Urodynamic testing in children: indications, technique, interpretation and significance. J Urol. 2011;186(4):1190–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Chin-Peuckert L, Komlos M, Rennick JE, Jednak R, Capolicchio JP, Salle JL. What is the variability between 2 consecutive cystometries in the same child? J Urol. 2003;170(4 Pt 2):1614–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Lorenzo AJ, Wallis MC, Cook A, et al. What is the variability in urodynamic parameters with position change in children? Analysis of a prospectively enrolled cohort. J Urol. 2007;178(6):2567–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Sozubir S, Celik A, Emir N, Avanoglu A, Ulman I. Consistency of urodynamic parameters in children with detrusor instability: how many times should the bladder be filled? Urol Int. 2005;75(2):129–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Jorgensen B, Olsen LH, Jorgensen TM. Natural fill urodynamics and conventional cystometrogram in infants with neurogenic bladder. J Urol. 2009;181(4):1862–7. discussion 1867-1868

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Viera AJGJ. Understand interobserver agreement: the kappa statistic. Fam Med. 2005;37(5):360–3.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. de Vet HC, Terwee CB, Knol DL, Bouter LM. When to use agreement versus reliability measures. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59(10):1033–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Sadatsafavi M, Najafzadeh M, Lynd L, Marra C. Reliability studies of diagnostic tests are not using enough observers for robust estimation of interobserver agreement: a simulation study. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61(7):722–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. MacNeily AL, Leonard MP, Metcalfe PD, et al. Development of an objective score to quantify the pediatric cystometrogram. J Urol. 2007;178(4 Pt 2):1752–6. discussion 1756-1757

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Dudley AG, Adams MC, Brock JW III, et al. Interrater Reliability in Interpretation of Neuropathic Pediatric Urodynamic Tracings: An Expanded Multi-Center Study. 2017 2017.

  21. • Dudley AG, Casella DP, Lauderdale CJ, et al. Interrater reliability in pediatric urodynamic tracings: a pilot study. J Urol. 2017;197(3 Pt 2):865–70. This paper evaluates the reliability of urodynamic parameters in neuropathic bladder.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. • Routh JC, Cheng EY, Austin JC, et al. Design and methodological considerations of the centers for disease control and prevention urologic and renal protocol for the newborn and young child with spina bifida. J Urol. 2016;196(6):1728–34. This paper reviews current CDC Protocols and Methodology reasoning for the Urologic and Renal Protocol for the Newborn and Young Child with Spina Bifida.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Smith PP, Hurtado EA, Appell RA. Post hoc interpretation of urodynamic evaluation is qualitatively different than interpretation at the time of urodynamic study. Neurourol Urodyn. 2009;28(8):998–1002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Bael A, Lax H, de Jong TP, et al. The relevance of urodynamic studies for Urge syndrome and dysfunctional voiding: a multicenter controlled trial in children. J Urol. 2008;180(4):1486–93. discussion 1494-1485

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Bauer S. Editorial comment: investigator bias in urodynamic studies for functional urinary incontinence. J Urol. 2009;182:1949–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. • Anding R, Smith P, de Jong T, Constantinou C, Cardozo L, Rosier P. When should video and EMG be added to urodynamics in children with lower urinary tract dysfunction and is this justified by the evidence? ICI-RS 2014. Neurourol Urodyn. 2016;35(2):331–5. This paper reviews evidence for VUDS.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Hsi RS, Dearn J, Dean M, et al. Effective and organ specific radiation doses from videourodynamics in children. J Urol. 2013;190(4):1364–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Concodora CW, Reddy PP, VanderBrink BA. The role of video Urodynamics in the Management of the Valve Bladder. Curr Urol Rep. 2017;18(3):24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Meyrat BJ, Tercier S, Lutz N, Rilliet B, Forcada-Guex M, Vernet O. Introduction of a urodynamic score to detect pre-and postoperative neurological deficits in children with primary tethered cord. Childs Nerv Syst. 2003;19:716–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Wang HH, Lloyd JC, Wiener JS, Routh JC. Nationwide trends and variations in urological surgical interventions and renal outcome in patients with spina bifida. J Urol. 2016;195(4 Pt 2):1189–94.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Lodwick D, Asti L, Deans K, Minneci P, McLeod D. Variation in practice patterns for the management of newborn spina bifida in the United States. Urology. 2017;100:207–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Nager CW, Albo ME, Fitzgerald MP, et al. Process for development of multicenter urodynamic studies. Urology. 2007;69(1):63–7. discussion 67-68

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Lee B, Featherstone N, Nagappan P, McCarthy L, O'Toole S. British Association of Paediatric Urologists consensus statement on the management of the neuropathic bladder. J Pediatr Urol. 2016;12(2):76–87.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Renganathan A, Cartwright R, Cardozo L, Robinson D, Srikrishna S. Quality control in urodynamics: analysis of an international multi-center study. Neurourol Urodyn. 2009;28(5):380–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. • Franco I, Shei-Dei Yang S, Chang SJ, Nussenblatt B, Franco JA. A quantitative approach to the interpretation of uroflowmetry in children. Neurourol Urodyn. 2016;35(7):836–46. This paper discusses mathematical modeling of uroflow in children.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Saldano DD, Maizels M, Franco I. CEVL interactive—interpreting pediatric uroflowmetry/EMG objectively. J Pediatr Urol. 2017;13(2):125–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Personal Communication I. Franco

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Pediatric Urology, Monroe Carell Jr. Children’s Hospital at Vanderbilt, 4th floor 2200 Children’s Way, Nashville, TN, 37232, USA

    A. G. Dudley, A. S. Taylor & S. T. Tanaka

Authors
  1. A. G. Dudley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A. S. Taylor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. S. T. Tanaka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. G. Dudley.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Drs Dudley and Taylor declare no conflicts of interests.

Dr. Tanaka declares receiving grants from the CDC National Spina Bifida Registry and CDC Newborn Urologic Protocol and serves on the editorial board for the AUA Updates Series.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Source of Funding

None.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Pediatric Bladder Dysfunction

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dudley, A.G., Taylor, A.S. & Tanaka, S.T. Reliability and Reproducibility of Pediatric Urodynamic Studies. Curr Bladder Dysfunct Rep 12, 233–240 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11884-017-0440-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11884-017-0440-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation