How reliable is endoscopic stone recognition?: A comparison between visual stone identification and formal stone analysis

Objective: To assess the diagnostic accuracy and intra-observer agreement of endoscopic stone recognition (ESR) compared with formal stone analysis. Introduction: Stone analysis is a corner stone in the prevention of stone recurrence. Although X-ray diffraction (XRD) and infrared spectroscopy are the recommended techniques for reliable formal stone analysis, this is not always possible, and the process takes time and is costly. ESR could be an alternative, as it would give immediate information on stone composition. Materials and Methods: Fifteen endourologists predicted stone composition based on 100 videos from ureterorenoscopy. Diagnostic accuracy was evaluated by comparing the prediction from visual assessment with stone analysis by XRD. After 30 days, the videos were reviewed again in a random order to assess intra-observer agreement. Results: The median diagnostic accuracy for calcium oxalate monohydrate was 54% in questionnaire 1 (Q1) and 59% in questionnaire 2 (Q2), whereas calcium oxalate dihydrate had a median diagnostic accuracy of 75% in Q1 and 50% in Q2. The diagnostic accuracy for calcium hydroxyphosphate was 10% in Q1 and 13% in Q2. The median diagnostic accuracy for calcium hydrogen phosphate dihydrate and calcium magnesium phosphate was 0% in both questionnaires. The median diagnostic accuracy for magnesium ammonium phosphate was 20% in Q1 and 40% in Q2. The median diagnostic accuracy for uric acid was 22% in both questionnaires. Finally, there was a diagnostic accuracy of 60% in Q1 and 80% in Q2 for cystine. The intra-observer agreement ranged between 45% and 72%. Conclusion: Diagnostic accuracy of ESR is limited and intra-observer agreement is below the threshold of acceptable agreement

The Uniform grading tooL for flexIble ureterorenoscoPes (TULIP-tool): a Delphi consensus project on standardised evaluation of flexible ureterorenoscopes.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a standardised tool to evaluate flexible ureterorenoscopes (fURS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A three-stage consensus building approach based on the modified Delphi technique was performed under guidance of a steering group. First, scope- and user-related parameters used to evaluate fURS were identified through a systematic scoping review. Then, the main categories and subcategories were defined, and the expert panel was selected. Finally, a two-step modified Delphi consensus project was conducted to firstly obtain consensus on the relevance and exact definition of each (sub)category necessary to evaluate fURS, and secondly on the evaluation method (setting, used tools and unit of outcome) of those (sub)categories. Consensus was reached at a predefined threshold of 80% high agreement. RESULTS: The panel consisted of 30 experts in the field of endourology. The first step of the modified Delphi consensus project consisted of two questionnaires with a response rate of 97% (n = 29) for both. Consensus was reached for the relevance and definition of six main categories and 12 subcategories. The second step consisted of three questionnaires (response rate of 90%, 97% and 100%, respectively). Consensus was reached on the method of measurement for all (sub)categories. CONCLUSION: This modified Delphi consensus project reached consensus on a standardised grading tool for the evaluation of fURS - The Uniform grading tooL for flexIble ureterorenoscoPes (TULIP) tool. This is a first step in creating uniformity in this field of research to facilitate future comparison of outcomes of the functionality and handling of fURS

The Uniform grading tooL for flexIble ureterorenoscoPes (TULIP-tool): a Delphi consensus project on standardised evaluation of flexible ureterorenoscopes

Objective: To develop a standardised tool to evaluate flexible ureterorenoscopes (fURS). Materials and Methods: A three-stage consensus building approach based on the modified Delphi technique was performed under guidance of a steering group. First, scope- and user-related parameters used to evaluate fURS were identified through a systematic scoping review. Then, the main categories and subcategories were defined, and the expert panel was selected. Finally, a two-step modified Delphi consensus project was conducted to firstly obtain consensus on the relevance and exact definition of each (sub)category necessary to evaluate fURS, and secondly on the evaluation method (setting, used tools and unit of outcome) of those (sub)categories. Consensus was reached at a predefined threshold of 80% high agreement. Results: The panel consisted of 30 experts in the field of endourology. The first step of the modified Delphi consensus project consisted of two questionnaires with a response rate of 97% (n = 29) for both. Consensus was reached for the relevance and definition of six main categories and 12 subcategories. The second step consisted of three questionnaires (response rate of 90%, 97% and 100%, respectively). Consensus was reached on the method of measurement for all (sub)categories. Conclusion: This modified Delphi consensus project reached consensus on a standardised grading tool for the evaluation of fURS – The Uniform grading tooL for flexIble ureterorenoscoPes (TULIP) tool. This is a first step in creating uniformity in this field of research to facilitate future comparison of outcomes of the functionality and handling of fURS

The Uniform grading tooL for flexIble ureterorenoscoPes (TULIP-tool): a Delphi consensus project on standardised evaluation of flexible ureterorenoscopes

OBJECTIVE: To develop a standardised tool to evaluate flexible ureterorenoscopes (fURS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A three-stage consensus building approach based on the modified Delphi technique was performed under guidance of a steering group. First, scope- and user-related parameters used to evaluate fURS were identified through a systematic scoping review. Then, the main categories and subcategories were defined, and the expert panel was selected. Finally, a two-step modified Delphi consensus project was conducted to firstly obtain consensus on the relevance and exact definition of each (sub)category necessary to evaluate fURS, and secondly on the evaluation method (setting, used tools and unit of outcome) of those (sub)categories. Consensus was reached at a predefined threshold of 80% high agreement. RESULTS: The panel consisted of 30 experts in the field of endourology. The first step of the modified Delphi consensus project consisted of two questionnaires with a response rate of 97% (n = 29) for both. Consensus was reached for the relevance and definition of six main categories and 12 subcategories. The second step consisted of three questionnaires (response rate of 90%, 97% and 100%, respectively). Consensus was reached on the method of measurement for all (sub)categories. CONCLUSION: This modified Delphi consensus project reached consensus on a standardised grading tool for the evaluation of fURS - The Uniform grading tooL for flexIble ureterorenoscoPes (TULIP) tool. This is a first step in creating uniformity in this field of research to facilitate future comparison of outcomes of the functionality and handling of fURS