Use of a prostate model to assist in training for digital rectal examination

Stephen J. Yanoshak, Claus Roehrborn, Cynthia J. Girman, Jamison S. Jaffe, Phillip C. Ginsberg, Richard C. Harkaway

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

15 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives. To assess the accuracy of prostate size estimation on digital rectal examination (DRE) before and after training with a three-dimensional prostate model relative to prostate volume by transrectal ultrasound (TRUS). Methods. A total of 100 subjects underwent DRE by one of four family physicians (FP1, n = 34; FP2, n = 26; FP3, n = 22; and FP4, n = 18). One half were examined before any training on DRE prostate size examination and one half after the physicians were trained. Training involved teaching with a three-dimensional prostate model having posterior surface areas corresponding to the average dimensions of six different prostate volumes. The FPs were instructed to estimate the prostate size on the DRE to the nearest 5 g. A single urologist unaware of the DRE results performed TRUS on all patients to measure the prostate volume. Results. Before training, the DRE size estimates ranged from 10 to 100 g (mean ± SD 32.8 ± 21.6), with a TRUS volume of 1 1 to 122 g (mean ± SD 38.9 ± 23.1). The correlation between the ORE and TRUS estimates was 0.25, suggesting low agreement (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] 0.35, 95% confidence interval 0.31, 0.38). After training, 50 different patients had DRE size estimates of 10 to 100 g (mean ± SD 39.4 ± 19.7) and TRUS volume of 10 to 1 19 g (mean ± SD 41.5 ± 24.1). The correlation between the techniques was higher in patients examined after training (r = 0.765), suggesting much better agreement between the techniques (ICC 0.87; 95% confidence interval 0.86, 0.88). Among the physicians, agreement between DRE and TRUS was higher after training (ICC 0.64 to 0.96) than before training (ICC 0.02 to 0.49). Conclusions. Although the subjects examined before and after training differed, the agreement between TRUS and DRE prostate size estimates by the FPs appeared to be stronger after training with a three-dimensional prostate model. This model may be a useful tool to assist in training FPs and medical students to measure prostate size on DRE.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)690-693
Number of pages4
JournalUrology
Volume55
Issue number5
StatePublished - 2000

Fingerprint

Digital Rectal Examination
Prostate
Confidence Intervals
Physicians
Family Physicians
Medical Students
Teaching

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Urology

Cite this

Yanoshak, S. J., Roehrborn, C., Girman, C. J., Jaffe, J. S., Ginsberg, P. C., & Harkaway, R. C. (2000). Use of a prostate model to assist in training for digital rectal examination. Urology, 55(5), 690-693.

Use of a prostate model to assist in training for digital rectal examination. / Yanoshak, Stephen J.; Roehrborn, Claus; Girman, Cynthia J.; Jaffe, Jamison S.; Ginsberg, Phillip C.; Harkaway, Richard C.

In: Urology, Vol. 55, No. 5, 2000, p. 690-693.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Yanoshak, SJ, Roehrborn, C, Girman, CJ, Jaffe, JS, Ginsberg, PC & Harkaway, RC 2000, 'Use of a prostate model to assist in training for digital rectal examination', Urology, vol. 55, no. 5, pp. 690-693.
Yanoshak SJ, Roehrborn C, Girman CJ, Jaffe JS, Ginsberg PC, Harkaway RC. Use of a prostate model to assist in training for digital rectal examination. Urology. 2000;55(5):690-693.
Yanoshak, Stephen J. ; Roehrborn, Claus ; Girman, Cynthia J. ; Jaffe, Jamison S. ; Ginsberg, Phillip C. ; Harkaway, Richard C. / Use of a prostate model to assist in training for digital rectal examination. In: Urology. 2000 ; Vol. 55, No. 5. pp. 690-693.
@article{4d72976dfb2a4c6dbf4cab10472d67fc,
title = "Use of a prostate model to assist in training for digital rectal examination",
abstract = "Objectives. To assess the accuracy of prostate size estimation on digital rectal examination (DRE) before and after training with a three-dimensional prostate model relative to prostate volume by transrectal ultrasound (TRUS). Methods. A total of 100 subjects underwent DRE by one of four family physicians (FP1, n = 34; FP2, n = 26; FP3, n = 22; and FP4, n = 18). One half were examined before any training on DRE prostate size examination and one half after the physicians were trained. Training involved teaching with a three-dimensional prostate model having posterior surface areas corresponding to the average dimensions of six different prostate volumes. The FPs were instructed to estimate the prostate size on the DRE to the nearest 5 g. A single urologist unaware of the DRE results performed TRUS on all patients to measure the prostate volume. Results. Before training, the DRE size estimates ranged from 10 to 100 g (mean ± SD 32.8 ± 21.6), with a TRUS volume of 1 1 to 122 g (mean ± SD 38.9 ± 23.1). The correlation between the ORE and TRUS estimates was 0.25, suggesting low agreement (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] 0.35, 95{\%} confidence interval 0.31, 0.38). After training, 50 different patients had DRE size estimates of 10 to 100 g (mean ± SD 39.4 ± 19.7) and TRUS volume of 10 to 1 19 g (mean ± SD 41.5 ± 24.1). The correlation between the techniques was higher in patients examined after training (r = 0.765), suggesting much better agreement between the techniques (ICC 0.87; 95{\%} confidence interval 0.86, 0.88). Among the physicians, agreement between DRE and TRUS was higher after training (ICC 0.64 to 0.96) than before training (ICC 0.02 to 0.49). Conclusions. Although the subjects examined before and after training differed, the agreement between TRUS and DRE prostate size estimates by the FPs appeared to be stronger after training with a three-dimensional prostate model. This model may be a useful tool to assist in training FPs and medical students to measure prostate size on DRE.",
author = "Yanoshak, {Stephen J.} and Claus Roehrborn and Girman, {Cynthia J.} and Jaffe, {Jamison S.} and Ginsberg, {Phillip C.} and Harkaway, {Richard C.}",
year = "2000",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "55",
pages = "690--693",
journal = "Urology",
issn = "0090-4295",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Use of a prostate model to assist in training for digital rectal examination

AU - Yanoshak, Stephen J.

AU - Roehrborn, Claus

AU - Girman, Cynthia J.

AU - Jaffe, Jamison S.

AU - Ginsberg, Phillip C.

AU - Harkaway, Richard C.

PY - 2000

Y1 - 2000

N2 - Objectives. To assess the accuracy of prostate size estimation on digital rectal examination (DRE) before and after training with a three-dimensional prostate model relative to prostate volume by transrectal ultrasound (TRUS). Methods. A total of 100 subjects underwent DRE by one of four family physicians (FP1, n = 34; FP2, n = 26; FP3, n = 22; and FP4, n = 18). One half were examined before any training on DRE prostate size examination and one half after the physicians were trained. Training involved teaching with a three-dimensional prostate model having posterior surface areas corresponding to the average dimensions of six different prostate volumes. The FPs were instructed to estimate the prostate size on the DRE to the nearest 5 g. A single urologist unaware of the DRE results performed TRUS on all patients to measure the prostate volume. Results. Before training, the DRE size estimates ranged from 10 to 100 g (mean ± SD 32.8 ± 21.6), with a TRUS volume of 1 1 to 122 g (mean ± SD 38.9 ± 23.1). The correlation between the ORE and TRUS estimates was 0.25, suggesting low agreement (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] 0.35, 95% confidence interval 0.31, 0.38). After training, 50 different patients had DRE size estimates of 10 to 100 g (mean ± SD 39.4 ± 19.7) and TRUS volume of 10 to 1 19 g (mean ± SD 41.5 ± 24.1). The correlation between the techniques was higher in patients examined after training (r = 0.765), suggesting much better agreement between the techniques (ICC 0.87; 95% confidence interval 0.86, 0.88). Among the physicians, agreement between DRE and TRUS was higher after training (ICC 0.64 to 0.96) than before training (ICC 0.02 to 0.49). Conclusions. Although the subjects examined before and after training differed, the agreement between TRUS and DRE prostate size estimates by the FPs appeared to be stronger after training with a three-dimensional prostate model. This model may be a useful tool to assist in training FPs and medical students to measure prostate size on DRE.

AB - Objectives. To assess the accuracy of prostate size estimation on digital rectal examination (DRE) before and after training with a three-dimensional prostate model relative to prostate volume by transrectal ultrasound (TRUS). Methods. A total of 100 subjects underwent DRE by one of four family physicians (FP1, n = 34; FP2, n = 26; FP3, n = 22; and FP4, n = 18). One half were examined before any training on DRE prostate size examination and one half after the physicians were trained. Training involved teaching with a three-dimensional prostate model having posterior surface areas corresponding to the average dimensions of six different prostate volumes. The FPs were instructed to estimate the prostate size on the DRE to the nearest 5 g. A single urologist unaware of the DRE results performed TRUS on all patients to measure the prostate volume. Results. Before training, the DRE size estimates ranged from 10 to 100 g (mean ± SD 32.8 ± 21.6), with a TRUS volume of 1 1 to 122 g (mean ± SD 38.9 ± 23.1). The correlation between the ORE and TRUS estimates was 0.25, suggesting low agreement (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] 0.35, 95% confidence interval 0.31, 0.38). After training, 50 different patients had DRE size estimates of 10 to 100 g (mean ± SD 39.4 ± 19.7) and TRUS volume of 10 to 1 19 g (mean ± SD 41.5 ± 24.1). The correlation between the techniques was higher in patients examined after training (r = 0.765), suggesting much better agreement between the techniques (ICC 0.87; 95% confidence interval 0.86, 0.88). Among the physicians, agreement between DRE and TRUS was higher after training (ICC 0.64 to 0.96) than before training (ICC 0.02 to 0.49). Conclusions. Although the subjects examined before and after training differed, the agreement between TRUS and DRE prostate size estimates by the FPs appeared to be stronger after training with a three-dimensional prostate model. This model may be a useful tool to assist in training FPs and medical students to measure prostate size on DRE.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0034185888&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0034185888&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 10792082

AN - SCOPUS:0034185888

VL - 55

SP - 690

EP - 693

JO - Urology

JF - Urology

SN - 0090-4295

IS - 5

ER -