| Literature DB >> 28622388 |
Mahdi Bayat1, Viksit Kumar1, Max Denis2, Jeremy Webb2, Adriana Gregory1, Mohammad Mehrmohammadi1, Mathew Cheong1, Douglas Husmann3, Lance Mynderse3, Azra Alizad1,2, Mostafa Fatemi1.
Abstract
PURPOSE OREntities:
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28622388 PMCID: PMC5473568 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0179598
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Concurrent UDS and UBV measurement setup for studying bladder compliance.
Fig 2Bladder cavity and detrusor layer (inferior layer) as seen in the B-mode ultrasound image.
Fig 3(a) Spatial-temporal map of the bladder wall motion in response to acoustic radiation force. Dotted lines represent the least square regression for group velocity calculation. The color shows the amplitude of the particle velocity in mm/s. (b) Phase velocity dispersion curve from the two-dimensional Fourier analysis of the displacement data and Lamb wave fit for calculation of the elasticity.
Fig 4(a) Distribution of cystometric volume in 70 patients.
Fig 5(a) From left to right: detrusor pressure, estimated group velocity squared and shear elasticty in a noncompliant patient (compliance < 18.75). (b) from left to right: detrusor pressure, estimated group velocity squared and shear elasticity in a compliant patient (compliance > 62.5)
Fig 6Distribution of Pearson correlation between different parameters of UBV and UDS detrusor pressure (Pdet).
For each group the width of the notches show the 95% confidence interval and data points with different markers present outliers in each group.
Summary of the statistical analysis of correlation between UBV and UDS.
| Median Pearson correlation (95% CI) | 0.73 (0.64–0.80) | 0.72 (0.56–0.82) |
| Mean Pearson correlation (95% CI) | 0.67 (0.61–0.74) | 0.60 (0.52–0.69) |
| t-test value = 0 correlation | P < 0.0001 | P < 0.0001 |
| t-test value = 0.5 correlation | P < 0.0001 | P = 0.0127 |
* p-value < 0.05 was considered significant.