The reproducibility of urodynamic findings in healthy female volunteers: Results of repeated studies in the same setting and after short-term follow-up

Neurourology and Urodynamics

Volumn 23, Issue 4, 2004, Pages 311-316

  Gupta, Amit ^a   Defreitas, Gina ^a   Lemack, Gary E ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b NONE   (United States)

Author keywords

Filling cystometry; Normal female voiding; Pressure flow study; Repeatability; Reproducibility; Urodynamics

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BLADDER FUNCTION; CYSTOMETRY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; ELECTROMYOGRAPHY; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; MICTURITION; NON INVASIVE MEASUREMENT; NORMAL HUMAN; REPRODUCIBILITY; URODYNAMICS; UROFLOWMETRY;

ADULT; AGED; DIAGNOSTIC TECHNIQUES, UROLOGICAL; ELECTROMYOGRAPHY; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; MIDDLE AGED; REFERENCE VALUES; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; TIME FACTORS; URODYNAMICS;

EID: 3042755424     PISSN: 07332467     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/nau.20039     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. Barry MJ, Girman CJ, O'Leary MP, et al. 1995. Using repeated measures of symptom score, uroflowmetry, and prostate specific antigen in the clinical management of prostate disease. Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia Treatment Outcomes Study Group. J Urol 15:99-103.
2. Bland JM, Altman DG. 1986. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1:307-10.
3. Bland JM, Altman DG. 1999. Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res 8:135-60.
4. Brostrom S, Jennum P, Lose G. 2002. Short-term reproducibility of cystometry and pressure-flow micturition studies in healthy women. Neurourol Urodyn 21:457-60.
5. Digesu GA, Hutchings A, Salvatore S, et al. 2003. Reproducibility and reliability of pressure flow parameters in women. BJOG 110:774-6.
6. Eri LM, Wessel N, Tysland O, et al. 2002. Comparative study of pressure-flow parameters. Neurourol Urodyn 21:186-93.
7. Groutz A, Blaivas JG, Sassone AM. 2000. Detrusor pressure uroflowmetry studies in women: Effect of a 7Fr transurethral catheter. J Urol 164:109-14.
8. Kranse R, van Mastrigt R. 2003. Causes for variability in repeated pressure-flow measurements. Urology 61:930-4; discussion 934-5.
9. Schafer W, Abrams P, Liao L, et al. 2002. Good urodynamic practices: Uroflowmetry, filling cystometry, and pressure-flow studies. Neurourol Urodyn 21:261-74.
10. Sonke GS, Kortmann BB, Verbeek AL, et al. 2000. Variability of pressure-flow studies in men with lower urinary tract symptoms. Neurourol Urodyn 19:637-51; discussion 651-6.
11. Sorensen S, Gregersen H, Sorensen SM. 1988. Long term reproducibility of urodynamic investigations in healthy fertile females. Scand J Urol Nephrol Suppl 114:35-41.
12. Uebersax JS, Wyman JF, Shumaker SA, et al. 1995. Short forms to assess life quality and symptom distress for urinary incontinence in women: The Incontinence Impact Questionnaire and the Urogenital Distress Inventory. Continence Program for Women Research Group. Neurourol Urodyn 14:131-9.
13. Weber AM, Taylor RJ, Wei JT, et al. 2002. The cost-effectiveness of preoperative testing (basic office assessment vs. urodynamics) for stress urinary incontinence in women. BJU Int 89:356-63.