Observational studyNeurourology and urodynamics2024
Reliability of Uroflowmetry Pattern Interpretation in Adult Women.
Observational study in Neurourology and urodynamics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04016298 (Validation of Bladder Health Instrument for Evaluation in Women), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 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.
Validation of Bladder Health Instrument for Evaluation in Women
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Phytochemicals as Epigenetic Modulators in Chronic Diseases: Molecular Mechanisms.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- An Emerging Trend of At-Home Uroflowmetry-Designing a New Vibration-Based Uroflowmeter with Artificial Intelligence Pattern Recognition of Uroflow Curves and Comparing with Other Technologies.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- A Repeatability Study of Measurement of Micturition With Voiding Sonography and Uroflowmetry of Asymptomatic Women.Lower urinary tract symptoms · 2025Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionUroflowmetry is often used to assess lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS). Criteria for characterization of flow patterns are not well established, and subjective interpretation is the most common approach for flow curve classification. We assessed the reliability of uroflowmetry curve interpretation in adult women. MATERIALS AND
methodsUroflowmetry studies were obtained in 296 women who participated in an observational cohort study. Four investigators with expertise in female LUTS and urodynamics reviewed and categorized each tracing for interrater reliability. A random subset of 50 tracings was re-reviewed by each investigator for intrarater reliability. The uroflowmetry tracings were rated using categories of continuous, continuous fluctuating, interrupted, and prolonged. Other parameters included flow rate, voided volume, time to maximum flow, and voiding time. Agreement between raters is summarized with kappa (k) statistics and percentage where at least three raters agreed.
resultsThe mean age of participants was 44.8 ± 18.3 years. Participant age categories were 18-24 years: 20%; 25-34 years: 17%; 35-64 years: 42%; 65+ years: 18%. Nine percent described their race as Asian, 31% Black, 62% White, and 89% were of non-Hispanic ethnicity. The interrater reliability was highest for the continuous flow category (k = 0.65), 0.47 for prolonged, 0.41 for continuous fluctuating, and 0.39 for interrupted flow curves. Agreement among at least three raters occurred in 74.3% of uroflow curves (69% for continuous, 33% for continuous fluctuating, 23% for interrupted, and 25% for prolonged). For intrarater reliability, the mean k was 0.72 with a range of 0.57-0.85.
conclusionsCurrently accepted uroflowmetry pattern categories have fair to moderate interrater reliability, which is lower for flow curves that do not meet "continuous" criteria. Given the subjective nature of interpreting uroflowmetry data, more consistent and clear parameters may enhance reliability for use in research and as a screening tool for LUTS and voiding dysfunction.
trial registrationParent trial: Validation of Bladder Health Instrument for Evaluation in Women (VIEW); ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT04016298.
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.