Post hoc interpretation of urodynamic evaluation is qualitatively different than interpretation at the time of urodynamic study

Neurourology and Urodynamics

Volumn 28, Issue 8, 2009, Pages 998-1002

  Smith, Phillip P ^a   Hurtado, Eric A ^b   Appell, Rodney A ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT HEALTH CENTER   (United States)

^b Northern Virginia Pelvic Surgery Associates   (United States)

^c Vanguard Urologic Institute   (United States)

Author keywords

Observer variation G03.850.490.750 ; Routine E01.370.395 ; Urodynamics G08.852.950 diagnostic tests

Indexed keywords

ANAMNESIS; ARTICLE; BLADDER CAPACITY; BLADDER COMPLIANCE; BLADDER PRESSURE; CYSTOMETRY; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; OBSERVER BIAS; POST HOC ANALYSIS; POSTVOID RESIDUAL URINE VOLUME; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; RELIABILITY; URINE FLOW RATE; URODYNAMICS; UROFLOWMETRY;

FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; OBSERVER VARIATION; TIME FACTORS; URODYNAMICS;

EID: 70449435353     PISSN: 07332467     EISSN: 15206777     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/nau.20730     Document Type: Article

References (12)

1. Gupta A, Defreitas G, Lemack GE. The reproducibility of urodynamic findings in healthy female volunteers: Results of repeated studies in the same setting and after short-term follow-up. Neurourol Urodyn 2004;23:311-316 (Pubitemid 38859421)
2. Kranse R, van Mastrigt R. Causes for variability in repeated pressure-flow measurements. Urology 2003;61:930-4; discussion 934-935 (Pubitemid 36547731)
3. Kulseng-Hanssen S. Reliability and validity of stationary cystometry, stationary cysto-urethrometry and ambulatory cysto-urethro-vaginometry. Acta Obstetr Gynecol Scand 1997;166:33-38 (Pubitemid 27356800)
4. Patel HR, Garcia-Montes F, Christopher N, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of flow rate testing in urology. BJU Int 2003;92:58-63. (Pubitemid 36843029)
5. Rovner ES, Wein AJ. Evaluation of lower urinary tract symptoms in females. Curr Opin Urol 2003;13:273-278 (Pubitemid 36900665)
6. Wein AJ, Hanno PM, Dixon DO, et al. The reproducibility and interpretation of carbon dioxide cystometry. J Urol 1978;120:205-206
7. Gacci M, Del Popolo G, Artibani W, et al. Visual assessment of uroflowmetry curves: Description and interpretation by urodynamists. World J Urol 2007;25:333-337
8. Van de Beek C, Stoevelaar HJ, McDonnell J, et al. Interpretation of uroflowmetry curves by urologists. J Urol 1997;157:164-168
9. Zimmern P, Nager CW, Albo M, et al. Interrater reliability of filling cystometrogram interpretation in a multicenter study. J Urol 2006;175:2174-2177 (Pubitemid 43668563)
10. Digesu GA, Hutchings A, Salvatore S, et al. Reproducibility and reliability of pressure flow parameters in women. BJOG 2003;110:774-776 (Pubitemid 36936781)
11. Whiteside JL, Hijaz A, Imrey PB, et al. Reliability and agreement of urodynamics interpretations in a female pelvic medicine center. Obstetr Gynecol 2006;108:315-323 (Pubitemid 44305672)
12. Schafer W, Abrams P, Liao L, et al. Good urodynamic practices: Uroflowmetry, filling cystometry, and pressure-flow studies. Neurourol Urodyn 2002;21:261-274 (Pubitemid 34411846)