Purpose: Urodynamic studies (UDS) are the gold standard for evaluating pediatric lower urinary tract dysfunction (LUTD). However, previous studies have shown that the interpretation of cystometric findings may vary according to the observer’s level of experience and the criteria used for evaluation. This study aimed to investigate interobserver differences in the reporting of cystometric parameters in children with spina bifida. Methods: Patients who underwent UDS between 2020 and 2025 for neurogenic LUTD secondary to spina bifida were retrospectively reviewed. Studies that did not reach 80% agreement for compliance with good urodynamic practice standards were excluded. Detrusor overactivity (DOA) and bladder compliance were independently evaluated by 4 pediatric urologists and 3 urologists experienced in neuro-urology. Agreement was assessed using Fleiss’ kappa test. Results: A total of 100 children, including 53 females and 47 males, were included; the median age was 6.5 (range, 1–17) years. Agreement of at least 80% was reached in 86% of evaluations for DOA and 82% of evaluations for compliance. Based on the ratings of 7 observers, the Fleiss’ kappa value was 0.60 for DOA, indicating moderate agreement, and 0.46 for bladder compliance, indicating weak agreement. Conclusions This study demonstrated substantial interobserver variation in the interpretation of UDS, even among experienced centers and observers. Because UDS are essential for the diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of patients with spina bifida, standardized criteria are needed to improve interobserver consistency in this patient group. Multicenter prospective studies involving observers with varying levels of experience are warranted to improve concordance in UDS reporting.

Purpose: Carbohydrate counting provides better glycemic control and flexibility than other food planning methods. Consistent adherence to such a complex method is difficult, especially for youth. However, studies that determine adherence to this method and whether it alters metabolic control are limited. The aim of the current study was to determine adherence to this method and investigate its effect on metabolic control, anthropometric measurements, insulin dose, and energy intake. Methods: In this prospective cross-sectional study, 53 children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes mellitus aged 2 to18 years and receiving intensive insulin therapy were trained and followed for 6 months. Demographics, anthropometrics, insulin requirements, hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), fasting lipids, and food records at baseline and study conclusion were evaluated. At the end of the study patients were divided into adherer and nonadherer groups according to carbohydrate estimate deviations from standardized daily sample menus and calculations for accurate insulin doses. More than 10-g variation in daily consumed carbohydrate amount or failure to decide bolus insulin dose was defined as a nonadherer. Results: The mean HbA1c, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and body mass index standard deviation score changed after the carbohydrate counting training while the mean HbA1c between groups was significant (P<0.05). Total daily insulin doses increased, and the mean high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels decreased in both groups. There were significant correlations between HbA1c and carbohydrate deviation scores as well as HbA1c and caregiver's education level. Conclusion Since adherence to carbohydrate counting may affect metabolic control, health professionals should evaluate and monitor carbohydrate counting skills of caregivers and patients in order to improve efficiency.