Observational studyNeurourology and urodynamics2026
Comparison of Free Uroflowmetry and Pressure-Flow Study Parameters: A Retrospective Analysis in Non-Neurogenic Male Patients.
Observational study in Neurourology and urodynamics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeUrodynamic evaluation requires transurethral catheterization that may introduce measurement artifacts affecting diagnostic accuracy. While catheter effects have been reported in female populations, systematic assessment of flow parameter differences between free uroflowmetry and pressure-flow studies in male patients remains limited. This study aimed to quantify these parameter differences in men with lower urinary tract symptoms.
methodsThis retrospective observational study examined non-neurogenic 83 male patients who underwent both free uroflowmetry and urodynamic evaluation between January 2021 and December 2024. Patients were stratified into two groups based on maximum flow rate comparisons: Group 1 (free uroflowmetry Qmax > pressure-flow study Qmax) and Group 2 (free uroflowmetry Qmax ≤ pressure-flow study Qmax). ROC analysis evaluated discriminative performance of uroflowmetry parameters, with Youden Index determining optimal cut-off values. Statistical analyses included paired t-tests, independent samples t-tests, and logistic regression.
resultsGroup 1 comprised 72 patients (86.7%) demonstrating significant flow reduction during urodynamics, while Group 2 included 11 patients (13.3%). Mean maximum flow rate was significantly reduced during pressure-flow studies (12.72 ± 5.71 versus 7.64 ± 6.49 mL/s, p < 0.001), representing a 5.08 mL/s mean reduction. ROC analysis revealed moderate discriminative ability for maximum flow rate (AUC: 0.730, 95% CI: 0.585-0.875, p = 0.014) and mean flow rate (AUC: 0.720, 95% CI: 0.572-0.868, p = 0.019). Optimal cut-off values were 11.55 mL/s for maximum flow rate (sensitivity: 58.3%, specificity: 81.8%) and 6.15 mL/s for mean flow rate (sensitivity: 56.9%, specificity: 81.8%).
conclusionsFlow parameter differences between free uroflowmetry and pressure-flow studies are prevalent in 86.7% of male patients, with clinically significant reductions averaging 5.08 mL/s. These findings highlight the need for standardized protocols accounting for measurement artifacts in urodynamic interpretation and emphasize the importance of baseline uroflowmetry parameters in predicting catheter-related effects. CLINICAL
trial registrationThis study was not a clinical trial and therefore did not require registration.
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.