AJR Your Link to CME
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kronemer, K. A.
Right arrow Articles by Hildebolt, C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Kronemer, K. A.
Right arrow Articles by Hildebolt, C.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol 172, 791-793, Copyright © 1999 by American Roentgen Ray Society

ARTICLES

Soft-copy versus hard-copy interpretation of voiding cystourethrography in neonates, infants, and children

KA Kronemer, S Don, GD Luker and C Hildebolt
The Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, St. Louis Children's Hospital, Washington University School of Medicine, MO 63110, USA.

OBJECTIVE: Our aim is to determine whether agreement occurs between soft-copy (at a review workstation) and hard-copy (on laser-printed film) interpretations of fluoroscopic voiding cystourethrograms in neonates, infants, and children. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Voiding cystourethrography was performed on 74 children (range, 2 weeks to 11 years old; mean, 3 years 6 months) for the evaluation of vesicoureteral reflux. The right and left ureters were scored separately by two observers on a scale of 0-5 using the international grading standard. Differences were tested for statistical significance with a marginal homogeneity test, and the strength of agreement was assessed using the kappa statistic. RESULTS: Of the 148 ureters evaluated, 39 showed vesicoureteral reflux and 109 showed no vesicoureteral reflux on both soft copy and hard copy. For 128 of 148 evaluations, interpretations of soft copy and hard copy produced agreement as to the grade of vesicoureteral reflux. For 11 of the 20 ureters with divergent interpretations, hard copy was scored one grade lower than soft copy; for the remaining nine ureters, hard copy was scored one grade higher than soft copy. No score differed by more than one grade. We found no statistically significant difference between soft-copy and hard-copy scores (p = .65), and agreement using the kappa statistic was substantial (.68). CONCLUSION: Soft-copy interpretation of voiding cystourethrograms is similar to hard-copy interpretation for vesicoureteral reflux.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
C. Balassy, M. Prokop, M. Weber, J. Sailer, C. J. Herold, and C. Schaefer-Prokop
Flat-Panel Display (LCD) Versus High-Resolution Gray-Scale Display (CRT) for Chest Radiography: An Observer Preference Study
Am. J. Roentgenol., March 1, 2005; 184(3): 752 - 756.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadioGraphicsHome page
W. H. McAlister, S. K. Fernbach, K. A. Feinstein, and M. B. Schmidt
Invited Commentary • Authors' Response
RadioGraphics, January 1, 2000; 20(1): 168 - 171.
[Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1999 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.