Visual assessment of uroflowmetry curves: description and interpretation by urodynamists

Abstract

The aim of study is to verify the aptitude of urodynamists to carry out an objective description of uroflowmetric parameters and to formulate a diagnostic suspicion by using merely the visual interpretation of uroflowmetry curves. An anonymous questionnaire including ten uroflowmetry curves was administered to urologists participating in the XXVI Congress of the Italian Society of Urodynamics (SIUD). To evaluate the accuracy in the description of uroflowmetry pattern, we asked to classify as “normal” or “abnormal” all uroflowmetry parameters; to assess the capability to outline a diagnostic suspicion, we requested to choose one out of six possible diagnoses. Inter- and intraobserver agreements were calculated. We overall recruited 105 questionnaires out of 300 urologists attending the SIUD Congress. Substantial interobserver agreement was obtained for maximum flow rate, average flow rate, flow time, and voiding time (K = 0.79, 0.79, 0.77, and 0.72), whereas substantial intraobserver agreements were evidenced for maximum flow rate and flow time (K = 0.70 and 0.63). We noted substantial agreement for the “No abnormalities” diagnosis (K = 0.72), fair agreement for “Urethral stricture” (K = 0.30), and slight agreement for both “Benign prostatic obstruction” and “Bladder outflow obstruction” (K = 0.17 and 0.20); moreover, we reported a moderate intraobserver agreement (K = 0.05) on diagnostic suspicion. Maximum flow rate, average flow rate, flow time, and voiding time are properly assessed by the large part of urodynamists. Flow curves from healthy men or from patients with urethral stricture or benign prostatic obstruction are easily recognizable. Long experience and daily practice may make the difference in the assessment of uroflowmetry curves.