Andrew Gammie1, Peter Rosier2, Rui Li3, Chris Harding4. 1. Bristol Urological Institute, Southmead Hospital, Bristol, UK. 2. Urology Hp C04 236, UMC Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands. 3. University of the West of England, Bristol, UK. 4. Department of Urology, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK.
Abstract
AIMS: To gauge the current level of diagnostic utility of uroflowmetry and to suggest areas needing research to improve this. METHODS: A summary of the debate held at the 2017 meeting of the International Consultation on Incontinence Research Society, with subsequent analysis by the authors. RESULTS: Limited diagnostic sensitivity and specificity exist for maximum flow rates, multiple uroflow measurements, and flow-volume nomograms. There is a lack of clarity in flow rate curve shape description and uroflow time measurement. CONCLUSIONS: There is a need for research to combine uroflowmetry with other non-invasive indicators. Better standardizations of test technique, flow-volume nomograms, uroflow shape descriptions, and time measurements are required.
AIMS: To gauge the current level of diagnostic utility of uroflowmetry and to suggest areas needing research to improve this. METHODS: A summary of the debate held at the 2017 meeting of the International Consultation on Incontinence Research Society, with subsequent analysis by the authors. RESULTS: Limited diagnostic sensitivity and specificity exist for maximum flow rates, multiple uroflow measurements, and flow-volume nomograms. There is a lack of clarity in flow rate curve shape description and uroflow time measurement. CONCLUSIONS: There is a need for research to combine uroflowmetry with other non-invasive indicators. Better standardizations of test technique, flow-volume nomograms, uroflow shape descriptions, and time measurements are required.