Expert classification of hypospadias: an external validation and evaluation of agreement for Glans–Urethral Meatus–Shaft (GMS) and Hypospadias Objective Penile Evaluation (HOPE) scores
link.springer.com shows its articles on its own site.
Read the article on link.springer.com ↗Article · Aug 2024 · 1 min read
In brief
In brief
This validation study compares two hypospadias classification systems (GMS and HOPE scores) by having three experts rate 528 pediatric cases. While both systems showed substantial inter-rater agreement, only meatus position achieved near-perfect consensus, revealing inherent subjectivity in current scoring methods for this congenital urological condition.
- GMS and HOPE scoring systems show substantial inter-rater agreement (kappa 0.67-0.89) but retain subjective elements in hypospadias classification
- Meatus position achieved highest agreement (0.888) while meatus shape had lowest (0.669) due to lack of quantitative classification in HOPE
- Current hypospadias scoring systems require expert judgment beyond objective criteria, limiting perfect reproducibility across raters
- Photo-based assessment excludes penile torsion and curvature evaluation, highlighting limitations of remote classification methods
Written by the GCMD Library team from the article.
Abstract
Purpose
This study evaluates the inter-rater agreements of both the Glans–Urethral Meatus–Shaft (GMS) hypospadias score and Hypospadias Objective Penile Evaluation (HOPE) score, aiming to standardize disease classification for consistent agreement in clinically relevant characteristics of hypospadias.
Methods
Photos of hypospadias in children were collected from two separate institutions. Three raters scored the photos using GMS and HOPE, excluding penile torsion and curvature assessment in HOPE due to photo limitations.
Results
A total of 528 photos were included. With GMS, Fleiss’ multi-rater kappa showed an agreement of 0.745 for glans–urethral plate, 0.869 for meatus, and 0.745 for shaft. For HOPE scores, the agreements were 0.888 for position of meatus, 0.669 for shape of meatus, 0.730 for shape of glans, and 0.708 for the shape of the skin. The lower agreement in the shape of the meatus evaluation may be attributed to the lack of a quantitative classification method in HOPE. Experts rely on their subjective judgment based on the provided example photos and their index patient.
Conclusions
While there is high agreement among experts when evaluating hypospadias using the GMS and HOPE scoring criteria, only the position of the meatus achieved nearly perfect agreement highlighting that the current scoring systems entail a subjective element in disease classification.