Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Pediatric Radiology
Published in: Pediatric Radiology 12/2018

01-11-2018 | Original Article

Ultrasound-based measurements of testicular volume in 6- to 16-year-old boys — intra- and interobserver agreement and comparison with Prader orchidometry

Authors: Ninnie Helén Bakken Oehme, Mathieu Roelants, Ingvild Særvold Bruserud, Geir Egil Eide, Robert Bjerknes, Karen Rosendahl, Pétur B. Júlíusson

Published in: Pediatric Radiology | Issue 12/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Prader orchidometry has been the standard method for evaluating testicular size. As this technique is subjective and tends to overestimate the testicular volume, ultrasound (US) has been proposed as more reliable.

Objective

To evaluate the intra- and interobserver agreement of US measurements of testicular volume and to compare US with the Prader orchidometer.

Materials and methods

Dimensions of the right testicle were measured using US in 57 boys ages 6.5 to 16.4 years (mean: 12.0 years). The measurements were performed twice by one main observer and once by a second observer. A third observer estimated testicular volume using a Prader orchidometer. Agreement was investigated with Bland-Altman plots, summarized as the mean and standard deviation (SD) of differences, 95% limits of agreement and technical error of measurement.

Results

Mean intra-observer difference of testicular volume was 2.2%, SD=9.2% (limits of agreement: -20.3 to 15.9%) and technical error of measurement 6.5%. The mean interobserver difference was 4.8%, SD=20.7% (limits of agreement: -35.7 to 45.3%) and technical error of measurement 14.6%. Comparing US and orchidometer volumes required conversion that was nonlinear and volume dependent, estimated as VolOM = 1.96×VolUS0.71. The mean difference after transformation was 0.7% with an SD of 18.0% (limits of agreement: -34.5 to 35.9%).

Conclusion

Our results showed a small mean intra- and interobserver difference that indicates the potential of US for measurement of testicular volume at group level. The intra-observer error was limited, which justifies its use in longitudinal follow-up of testicular development in an individual child, but the larger interobserver variability indicates the need for good standardization of methods. Agreement between the two methods requires a power transformation.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Herman-Giddens ME, Steffes J, Harris D et al (2012) Secondary sexual characteristics in boys: data from the Pediatric Research in Office Settings Network. Pediatrics 130:e1058–e1068CrossRef
2.
Prader A (1966) Testicular size: assessment and clinical importance. Triangle 7:240–243PubMed
3.
al Salim A, Murchison PJ, Rana A et al (1995) Evaluation of testicular volume by three orchidometers compared with ultrasonographic measurements. Br J Urol 76:632–635CrossRef
4.
Diamond DA, Paltiel HJ, DiCanzio J et al (2000) Comparative assessment of pediatric testicular volume: orchidometer versus ultrasound. J Urol 164:1111–1114CrossRef
5.
Paltiel HJ, Diamond DA, Di Canzio J et al (2002) Testicular volume: comparison of orchidometer and US measurements in dogs. Radiology 222:114–119CrossRef
6.
Rivkees SA, Hall DA, Boepple PA et al (1987) Accuracy and reproducibility of clinical measures of testicular volume. J Pediatr 110:914–917CrossRef
7.
Carlsen E, Andersen AG, Buchreitz L et al (2000) Inter-observer variation in the results of the clinical andrological examination including estimation of testicular size. Int J Androl 23:248–253CrossRef
8.
Fuse H, Takahara M, Ishii H et al (1990) Measurement of testicular volume by ultrasonography. Int J Androl 13:267–272CrossRef
9.
Kuijper EA, van Kooten J, Verbeke JI et al (2008) Ultrasonographically measured testicular volumes in 0- to 6-year-old boys. Hum Reprod 23:792–796CrossRef
10.
Schiff JD, Li PS, Goldstein M (2004) Correlation of ultrasonographic and orchidometer measurements of testis volume in adults. BJU Int 93:1015–1017CrossRef
11.
Behre HM, Nashan D, Nieschlag E (1989) Objective measurement of testicular volume by ultrasonography: evaluation of the technique and comparison with orchidometer estimates. Int J Androl 12:395–403CrossRef
12.
Sakamoto H, Ogawa Y, Yoshida H (2008) Relationship between testicular volume and testicular function: comparison of the Prader orchidometric and ultrasonographic measurements in patients with infertility. Asian J Androl 10:319–324CrossRef
13.
Slora EJ, Bocian AB, Herman-Giddens ME et al (2009) Assessing inter-rater reliability (IRR) of Tanner staging and orchidometer use with boys: a study from PROS. J Pediatr Endocrinol Metab 22:291–299CrossRef
14.
Mul D, Fredriks AM, van Buuren S et al (2001) Pubertal development in The Netherlands 1965-1997. Pediatr Res 50:479–486CrossRef
15.
Tatsunami S, Matsumiya K, Tsujimura A et al (2006) Inter/intra investigator variation in orchidometric measurements of testicular volume by ten investigators from five institutions. Asian J Androl 8:373–378CrossRef
16.
Karaman MI, Kaya C, Caskurlu T et al (2005) Measurement of pediatric testicular volume with Prader orchidometer: comparison of different hands. Pediatr Surg Int 21:517–520CrossRef
17.
Kunde M, Kunze C, Surov A et al (2015) Evaluation of testicular volume in 0- to 18-year-old boys by sonography. Der Urologe Ausg A 54:1772–1778CrossRef
18.
Lambert B (1951) The frequency of mumps and of mumps orchitis and the consequences for sexuality and fertility. Acta Genet Stat Med 2:1–166PubMed
19.
Bland JM, Altman DG (2003) Applying the right statistics: analyses of measurement studies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 22:85–93CrossRef
20.
Sadov S, Koskenniemi JJ, Virtanen HE et al (2016) Testicular growth during puberty in boys with and without a history of congenital cryptorchidism. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 101:2570–2577CrossRef
21.
Sakamoto H, Saito K, Oohta M et al (2007) Testicular volume measurement: comparison of ultrasonography, orchidometry. and water displacement. Urology 69:152–157CrossRef
22.
Hsieh ML, Huang ST, Huang HC et al (2009) The reliability of ultrasonographic measurements for testicular volume assessment: comparison of three common formulas with true testicular volume. Asian J Androl 11:261–265CrossRef
23.
Goede J, Hack WW, Sijstermans K et al (2011) Normative values for testicular volume measured by ultrasonography in a normal population from infancy to adolescence. Horm Res Paediatr 76:56–64CrossRef
24.
Rankin G, Stokes M (1998) Reliability of assessment tools in rehabilitation: an illustration of appropriate statistical analyses. Clin Rehabil 12:187–199CrossRef
25.
Bland JM, Altman DG (1990) A note on the use of the intraclass correlation coefficient in the evaluation of agreement between two methods of measurement. Comput Biol Med 20:337–340CrossRef
26.
Lin CC, Huang WJ, Chen KK (2009) Measurement of testicular volume in smaller testes: how accurate is the conventional orchidometer? J Androl 30:685–68927CrossRef
27.
Joustra SD, van der Plas EM, Goede J et al (2015) New reference charts for testicular volume in Dutch children and adolescents allow the calculation of standard deviation scores. Acta Paediatr 104:e271-e278CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Ultrasound-based measurements of testicular volume in 6- to 16-year-old boys — intra- and interobserver agreement and comparison with Prader orchidometry
Authors
Ninnie Helén Bakken Oehme
Mathieu Roelants
Ingvild Særvold Bruserud
Geir Egil Eide
Robert Bjerknes
Karen Rosendahl
Pétur B. Júlíusson
Publication date
01-11-2018
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Pediatric Radiology / Issue 12/2018
Print ISSN: 0301-0449
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1998
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-018-4195-8

Other articles of this Issue 12/2018

Pediatric Radiology 12/2018 Go to the issue

Original Article

Significance of pleural effusion at diagnosis in pediatric Hodgkin lymphoma: a report from Children’s Oncology Group protocol AHOD0031

Hermes

Hermes

PEDIATRIC RADIOLOGY CME ACTIVITY

Pediatric Radiology Continuing Medical Education Activity

Commentary

A pediatric radiologist in Rwanda

Original Article

Multiphase acquisitions in pediatric abdominal-pelvic CT are a common practice and contribute to unnecessary radiation dose

Case Report

Ultrasound diagnosis of tracheal cartilaginous sleeve in a patient with Pfeiffer syndrome