INTRODUCTION: To investigate the accuracy of uroflowmetry with disposable Q(Single) compared to measurements with a home-based digital device and compared to a single clinical measurement. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 60 men with lower urinary tract symptoms were included in a prospective, open-label, multicenter study. Uroflowmetry measurements were done using three devices/methods: single clinic-based method, followed by up to 12 measurements using the disposable home-based Q(Single) and up to 12 measurements using a home-based digital device. Subjective data on ease of use of Q(Single) and preference of patients was investigated and objective measures of Q(max) and voided volume from the three devices were compared. RESULTS: Mean Q(max) values of 12, 13 and 16 ml/s were achieved with the Q(Single) device, standard clinic method, and digital device, respectively. Mean Q(max) obtained with the Q(Single) device did not differ from that obtained with the clinic method. A significantly higher mean Q(max) was recorded for the digital device. Mean voided volumes recorded with each device differed marginally. Handling capabilities of the Q(Single) device were considered good by all subjects. CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy of Q(max) and voided volume mean measurements with Q(Single) was comparable to one standard clinic recording. Q(Single) offers a viable alternative to reduce the number of clinic visits and can be used by other caregivers.
INTRODUCTION: To investigate the accuracy of uroflowmetry with disposable Q(Single) compared to measurements with a home-based digital device and compared to a single clinical measurement. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 60 men with lower urinary tract symptoms were included in a prospective, open-label, multicenter study. Uroflowmetry measurements were done using three devices/methods: single clinic-based method, followed by up to 12 measurements using the disposable home-based Q(Single) and up to 12 measurements using a home-based digital device. Subjective data on ease of use of Q(Single) and preference of patients was investigated and objective measures of Q(max) and voided volume from the three devices were compared. RESULTS: Mean Q(max) values of 12, 13 and 16 ml/s were achieved with the Q(Single) device, standard clinic method, and digital device, respectively. Mean Q(max) obtained with the Q(Single) device did not differ from that obtained with the clinic method. A significantly higher mean Q(max) was recorded for the digital device. Mean voided volumes recorded with each device differed marginally. Handling capabilities of the Q(Single) device were considered good by all subjects. CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy of Q(max) and voided volume mean measurements with Q(Single) was comparable to one standard clinic recording. Q(Single) offers a viable alternative to reduce the number of clinic visits and can be used by other caregivers.
Authors: Stephen J Summers; Joseph M Armstrong; Steven A Kaplan; Alex E Te; Alvin Le; Scott M Heiner; Angela P Presson; Guo Wei; James M Hotaling Journal: J Urol Date: 2020-12-01 Impact factor: 7.450