ArticleInternational neurourology journal2021
A Prospective Comparative Study of Mobile Acoustic Uroflowmetry and Conventional Uroflowmetry.
Article in International neurourology journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Efficacy and Reliability of Mobile Uroflowmetry in Patients With Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia Undergoing Transurethral Resection: Prospective Multicenter Observational Pilot Validation Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Observational
- Annotated dataset of simulated voiding sound for urine flow estimation.Scientific data · 2025Article
- Innovative, Technology-Driven, Digital Tools for Managing Pediatric Urinary Incontinence: Scoping Review.Interactive journal of medical research · 2025Review
- Validation of acoustic voided volume measure: a pilot prospective study.World journal of urology · 2023Article
- Research Goes on During Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic.International neurourology journal · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this study was to assess the performance of a mobile acoustic Uroflowmetry (UFM) application compared with standard UFM in the pediatric population.
methodsA mobile acoustic UFM application represents a noninvasive method to estimate the urine flow rate by recording voiding sounds with a smartphone. Male pediatric patients who were undergoing UFM testing were prospectively recruited, and the voiding sounds were recorded and analyzed. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to compare the maximum flow rate (Qmax), average flow rate (Qavg), voiding time (VT), and voiding volume (VV) as estimated by acoustic UFM with those calculated by standard UFM. Differences in Qmax, Qavg, VT, and VV between the 2 UFM tests were determined using 95% Bland-Altman limits of agreement.
resultsA total of 16 male patients were evaluated. Their median age was 9 years. With standard UFM, the median Qmax, Qavg, VT, and VV were 18.7 mL/sec, 11.1 mL/sec, 15.2 seconds, and 157.8 mL, respectively. Strong correlations were observed between the 2 methods for Qmax (ICC=0.755, P=0.005), VT (ICC=0.974, P<0.001), and VV (ICC=0.930, P<0.001), but not for Qavg (ICC=0.442, P=0.135). The Bland-Altman plot showed good agreement between the 2 UFM tests. Flow patterns recorded by acoustic UFM and conventional UFM showed good visual correlations.
conclusionAcoustic UFM was comparable to standard UFM for male pediatric patients. Further validation of its performance in different toilet settings is necessary for broader use.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.