INTRODUCTION: Uroflowmetry is a common test to evaluate lower urinary tract symptoms. Audio-based uroflowmetry is a novel, alternative approach that determines urine flow by measuring sound. Available as a smartphone application, it has potential for screening and monitoring common urological pathologies, particularly in out-of-office environments. This study is the first to evaluate audio-based uroflowmetry in a clinical setting against the gold standard. METHODS: Adult male patients (n=44) attending a general urology clinic were recruited. Audio-based uroflowmetry and conventional uroflowmetry were performed concurrently. Pearson correlation and Bland-Altman analysis were used to compare performance with respect to max flow, time to max flow, and total voiding time. Symmetric mean absolute percentage error (SMAPE) was used to compare curve shapes. Repeatability was evaluated separately in three healthy volunteers using repeat measures correlation. RESULTS: Among urology clinic patients, the correlation for max flow was 0.12. Correlation for time to max flow was 0.46, with limits of agreement of -120-165%. Correlation for total voiding time was 0.91, with limits of agreement of -41-38%. The SMAPE for curve shape was 32.6%, with corresponding accuracy of 67.4%. Among healthy volunteers, the repeat measures correlation for max flow was 0.72. CONCLUSIONS: Audio-based uroflowmetry was inconsistent in evaluating flow rate, attributable to high variability and difficult standardization for acoustic signals. Performance improved with respect to temporal variables, as well as flow curve shape. Further work evaluating intra-patient reliability and pathology-specific performance is required to fully evaluate audio-based uroflowmetry as a screening or monitoring tool.
INTRODUCTION: Uroflowmetry is a common test to evaluate lower urinary tract symptoms. Audio-based uroflowmetry is a novel, alternative approach that determines urine flow by measuring sound. Available as a smartphone application, it has potential for screening and monitoring common urological pathologies, particularly in out-of-office environments. This study is the first to evaluate audio-based uroflowmetry in a clinical setting against the gold standard. METHODS: Adult male patients (n=44) attending a general urology clinic were recruited. Audio-based uroflowmetry and conventional uroflowmetry were performed concurrently. Pearson correlation and Bland-Altman analysis were used to compare performance with respect to max flow, time to max flow, and total voiding time. Symmetric mean absolute percentage error (SMAPE) was used to compare curve shapes. Repeatability was evaluated separately in three healthy volunteers using repeat measures correlation. RESULTS: Among urology clinic patients, the correlation for max flow was 0.12. Correlation for time to max flow was 0.46, with limits of agreement of -120-165%. Correlation for total voiding time was 0.91, with limits of agreement of -41-38%. The SMAPE for curve shape was 32.6%, with corresponding accuracy of 67.4%. Among healthy volunteers, the repeat measures correlation for max flow was 0.72. CONCLUSIONS: Audio-based uroflowmetry was inconsistent in evaluating flow rate, attributable to high variability and difficult standardization for acoustic signals. Performance improved with respect to temporal variables, as well as flow curve shape. Further work evaluating intra-patient reliability and pathology-specific performance is required to fully evaluate audio-based uroflowmetry as a screening or monitoring tool.
Authors: J M Reynard; Q Yang; J L Donovan; T J Peters; W Schafer; J J de la Rosette; N F Dabhoiwala; D Osawa; A T Lim; P Abrams Journal: Br J Urol Date: 1998-11