{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03499156829679595, 'fraction_numerical': 0.02023608768971332, 'mean_word_length': 5.038167938931298, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The agreement among urological experts on the diagnostic management of patients with common urological problems.

OBJECTIVE
To assess the level of agreement among randomly selected international urologists on the diagnostic management of patients with prostate cancer, bladder cancer, urinary stones or lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) arising from benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH).


METHODS
A computer program was used to provide an unbiased format of 53 simulated patients, comprising 13 with prostate cancer, 10 with bladder cancer, 10 with stones in the upper urinary tract and 20 with LUTS from BPH. For each case, the history was provided to the user while information from 60 diagnostic tests could be chosen interactively. Thirty-three university-based urologists participated in the study. The probability that a certain test was used by them in a certain patient [P(test)] and the related costs (Swedish 1995 prices) were recorded. The probability that two urologists would agree (relative measure of agreement, RMA) on whether or not to use one particular test in a certain case was RMA(test) = P(test)2 + [1-P(test)]2 and the mean of this RMA(test) for a certain patient [RMA(case)] was used as a measure of the inter-individual agreement among the urologists on the diagnostic management. The significance levels of the generalized kappa statistic, KG, were also calculated. The correlation between the RMA(case) and the diagnostic groups was analysed.


RESULTS
The KG was statistically significant for all cases; the RMA(case) was significantly correlated with the diagnostic groups (rs = 0.86). The agreement in the diagnostic management was the strongest for stones, then for bladder cancer and prostate cancer, and the weakest for BPH. The mean cost for the diagnostic evaluation for one case varied from $455 to $1771 (mean 898) and varied in the diagnostic groups, i.e. $1718 for prostate cancer, $947 for bladder cancer, $400 for stones and $594 for BPH.


CONCLUSION
The diagnostic management of urological patients varies greatly among urological experts from the industrial world. As a consequence, the related diagnostic costs might vary by about 400% if prices were similar everywhere. The agreement on the diagnostic management of cases is strongly correlated to the diagnosis. LUTS from BPH seems to be managed with the poorest agreement.