Limits...
Application of bland-altman method in comparing transrectal and transabdominal ultrasonography for estimating prostate volume.

Babaei Jandaghi A, Shakiba M, Nasseh H, Korouji Y, Esmaeili S, Khadem Maboudi AA, Khorshidi A - Iran J Med Sci (2015)

Bottom Line: The limits of agreement for the total prostate volume were -6.86/9.84 that was larger than predefined clinical acceptable margin of 5 mL.There is a lack of agreement between TAUS and TRUS for estimating the total prostate volume.It is not recommended to apply TAUS instead of TRUS for estimating prostate volume.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Radiology, Guilan University of Medical Sciences, Rasht, Iran;

ABSTRACT

Background: Estimating prostate volume using less invasive transabdominal ultrasonography (TAUS) instead of transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) is of interest in terms of identifying their agreement level. Previous reports on this subject, applied general correlation coefficient as the level of agreement. This study uses Bland-Altman method to quantify TAUS and TRUS agreement on estimating prostate volume.

Methods: Total prostate gland volume of 40 patients with signs and symptoms of benign prostatic hyperplasia were measured using TAUS and TRUS. The study was carried out at the Urology Research Center, Razi Hospital, Guilan University of Medical Sciences (Rasht, Iran) from March to October 2010. Both methods were performed in one session by the same experienced radiologist. Data were analyzed using Pearson correlation coefficient and Bland-Altman method.

Results: Total prostate volume estimated by TAUS and TRUS were 50.30±23 and 50.73±24.6 mL, respectively. The limits of agreement for the total prostate volume were -6.86/9.84 that was larger than predefined clinical acceptable margin of 5 mL.

Conclusion: There is a lack of agreement between TAUS and TRUS for estimating the total prostate volume. It is not recommended to apply TAUS instead of TRUS for estimating prostate volume.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Bland-Altman analysis for prostate volume
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4300478&req=5

Figure 1: Bland-Altman analysis for prostate volume

Mentions: Forty consecutive patients (age range, 40-87 years; mean, 66.9±10 years) participated in the study. Patients’ prostate volume was measured by two separate sonographic methods. The mean total prostate volume of all patients estimated by transabdominal sonography was 50.30±23.9 mL while mean prostate volume measurement estimated by transrectal sonography was 50.73±24.6 mL. The lowest and highest total prostate volume measurements of our study population was 21.37±19.9 mL and 100.15±99 mL, respectively. Table 1 illustrates patients’ prostate dimension measured by the two methods. Figure 1, demonstrates Bland-Altman plot. There is no relationship between the difference and the level of measurement in either plots. Therefore, reporting the limit of agreement is valid.


Application of bland-altman method in comparing transrectal and transabdominal ultrasonography for estimating prostate volume.

Babaei Jandaghi A, Shakiba M, Nasseh H, Korouji Y, Esmaeili S, Khadem Maboudi AA, Khorshidi A - Iran J Med Sci (2015)

Bland-Altman analysis for prostate volume
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4300478&req=5

Figure 1: Bland-Altman analysis for prostate volume
Mentions: Forty consecutive patients (age range, 40-87 years; mean, 66.9±10 years) participated in the study. Patients’ prostate volume was measured by two separate sonographic methods. The mean total prostate volume of all patients estimated by transabdominal sonography was 50.30±23.9 mL while mean prostate volume measurement estimated by transrectal sonography was 50.73±24.6 mL. The lowest and highest total prostate volume measurements of our study population was 21.37±19.9 mL and 100.15±99 mL, respectively. Table 1 illustrates patients’ prostate dimension measured by the two methods. Figure 1, demonstrates Bland-Altman plot. There is no relationship between the difference and the level of measurement in either plots. Therefore, reporting the limit of agreement is valid.

Bottom Line: The limits of agreement for the total prostate volume were -6.86/9.84 that was larger than predefined clinical acceptable margin of 5 mL.There is a lack of agreement between TAUS and TRUS for estimating the total prostate volume.It is not recommended to apply TAUS instead of TRUS for estimating prostate volume.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Radiology, Guilan University of Medical Sciences, Rasht, Iran;

ABSTRACT

Background: Estimating prostate volume using less invasive transabdominal ultrasonography (TAUS) instead of transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) is of interest in terms of identifying their agreement level. Previous reports on this subject, applied general correlation coefficient as the level of agreement. This study uses Bland-Altman method to quantify TAUS and TRUS agreement on estimating prostate volume.

Methods: Total prostate gland volume of 40 patients with signs and symptoms of benign prostatic hyperplasia were measured using TAUS and TRUS. The study was carried out at the Urology Research Center, Razi Hospital, Guilan University of Medical Sciences (Rasht, Iran) from March to October 2010. Both methods were performed in one session by the same experienced radiologist. Data were analyzed using Pearson correlation coefficient and Bland-Altman method.

Results: Total prostate volume estimated by TAUS and TRUS were 50.30±23 and 50.73±24.6 mL, respectively. The limits of agreement for the total prostate volume were -6.86/9.84 that was larger than predefined clinical acceptable margin of 5 mL.

Conclusion: There is a lack of agreement between TAUS and TRUS for estimating the total prostate volume. It is not recommended to apply TAUS instead of TRUS for estimating prostate volume.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus