Quality control in urodynamics and the role of software support in the QC procedure

Neurourology and Urodynamics

Volumn 30, Issue 8, 2011, Pages 1557-1564

  Hogan, S ^a   Jarvis, P ^a   Gammie, A ^b   Abrams, P ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GLAMORGAN   (United Kingdom)

^b BRISTOL UROLOGICAL INSTITUTE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

quality control; software features; urodynamics

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMPUTER PROGRAM; DETRUSOR MUSCLE; HEALTH CARE SURVEY; HUMAN; MUSCLE CONTRACTION; QUALITY CONTROL; UNITED KINGDOM; URODYNAMICS;

ARTIFACTS; AUTOMATION; BENCHMARKING; COUGH; DATA COLLECTION; DIAGNOSTIC TECHNIQUES, UROLOGICAL; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; GREAT BRITAIN; GUIDELINE ADHERENCE; GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; HUMANS; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PRESSURE; QUALITY CONTROL; QUALITY OF HEALTH CARE; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SOFTWARE VALIDATION; URODYNAMICS;

EID: 80054803774     PISSN: 07332467     EISSN: 15206777     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/nau.21133     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Schäfer W, Abrams P, Liao L, et al. Good Urodynamic Practices: Uroflowmetry, filling, cystometry and pressure flow studies. Neurourol Urodyn 2002; 21: 261-74.
2. Schäfer W, Liao L, Kirschner-Hermanns R, et al. Urodynamic quality control: qualitative plausibility control with typical value ranges. Neurourol Urodyn 1999; 18: 366-7 (abstract).
3. Sullivan J, Lewis P, Howell S, et al. Quality control in urodynamics: A review of urodynamic traces from one centre. Neurourol Urodyn 2009; 28: 380-4.
4. Abrams P,. Urodynamics. London: Springer; 2006.
5. Centre for Evidence-based Purchasing. Buyers' Guide: urodynamics systems. London: NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency; 2009. CEP09037.
6. Urinary Incontinence Treatment Network, UDS Interpretation Guidelines for UITN [Online]. Available from [Accessed 21st July 2010].
7. Urinary Incontinence Treatment Network, UDS Testing Protocol for UITN [Online]. Available from [Accessed 21st July 2010].
8. Lewis P, Abrams P,. Urodynamic protocol and central review of data for clinical trials in lower urinary tract dysfunction. BJU Int 2000; 85 (1): 20-30.
9. Liao L, Kirschner-Hermanns R, Schäfer W,. Urodynamic quality control: Quantitative plausibility control with typical value ranges. Neurourol Urodyn 1999; 18: 365-6.
10. Al-Taheer H, Shenoy J,. Urodynamic Traces; Quality Assessment [Online]. Available from [Accessed 21st July 2010].
11. Kramer G, Stohrer M,. Typical value ranges of pressures, infused volume, and compliance during the filling phase in neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction. Proceedings of the 31st Annual Meeting of the International Continence Society, Denver, 1999.
12. Sullivan J,. Quality control in urodynamicsâA prospective study of empty pressures. Neurourol Urodyn (in press).
13. Sriram R, Ojha H, Farrar DJ,. An audit of urodynamic standardization in the West Midlands, UK. BJU Int 2002; 90 (6): 537-9.
14. Ellis-Jones J, Swithinbank L, Abrams P,. The impact of formal education and training on urodynamic practice in the United Kingdom: A survey. Neurourol Urodyn 2006; 25: 406-10.
15. Ellis-Jones J, Bevan W, Matharu G, et al. Quality control: A comparison of urodynamic traces before and after attendance at an established urodynamic course. Proceedings of the 2006 Annual Meeting of the International Continence Society, Christchurch, 2006.
16. Griffiths D, Höfner K, van Mastrigt R, et al. Standardization of terminology of lower urinary tract function: Pressure-flow studies of voiding, urethral resistance, and urethral obstruction. Neurourol Urodyn 1997; 16 (1): 1-18.
17. Gammie A, Drake M, Swithinbank L, et al. Absolute versus relative pressure. Neurourol Urodyn 2009; 28: 468.
18. van Mastrigt R, Griffiths DJ,. ICS standard for digital exchange of urodynamic study data. Neurourol Urodyn 2004; 23 (3): 280.