Objectives: To evaluate a computerized method of artifact detection and correction of uroflow and compare the quantitative assessment of maximum flow obtained by the computer with visual correction by experts. Methods: A total of 90 randomly chosen flows was scanned into the computer whereafter automated artifact detection and correction was performed according to pre-established rules implemented in the software. Three experts visually corrected the flows using the same artifact detection and correction specifications as the computer. Measuring agreement between different methods of assessment of maximum flow was evaluated by calculating the difference and the standard deviation (SD) of the differences. The repeatability of assessing the maximum flow value by the computer and by expert 1 was assessed by calculating the difference between 2 readings and the coefficient of repeatability. Results: The coefficient of repeatability of maximum flow after detection and correction of artifacts by the computer (0.38 ml/s) was slightly better when compared with the coefficient of repeatability between 2 observations by 1 expert (1.12 ml/s). The interobserver variation for the quantitative assessment of maximum flow appeared to be great. A total of 51% of the maximum flow values assessed by expert 2 was 1 ml/s or more greater than those assessed by expert 1. When comparing the results of the computer with those of the experts, the mean value of maximum flow from expert 1 was 0.71 ml/s smaller than the computer value (p < 0.01), the mean value from expert 2 was 0.53 ml/s greater (p < 0.01) and the mean value from expert 3 was not significantly different (0.25 ml/s greater). The SD of maximum flow after correction by the computer was 0.3 ml/s smaller than the SD of the raw data from the flowmeter and the corrected values by 2 experts. Conclusions: Computerized artifact detection and correction eliminates an important fraction of the variability of manually corrected maximum flow values. This may lead to smaller sample size requirements, especially in studies where the primary objective is to assess a small (± 1 ml/s) difference in mean maximum flow between groups.

Keywords:
Uroflowmetry, Computer-assisted analysis, Artifacts, Observer variation
1.
Jensen KM-E: Uroflowmetry in elderly men. World J Urol 1995;13:21–23.
2.
McLoughlin J, Gill KP, Abel PD, Williams G: Symptoms versus flow rates versus urodynamics in the selection of patients for prostatectomy. Br J Urol 1990;66:303–305.
3.
Grino PB, Bruskewitz R, Blaivas JG, Siroky MB, Andersen JT, Cook T, Stoner E: Maximum urinary flow rate by uroflowmetry: Automatic or visual interpretation. J Urol 1993;149:339–341.
4.
Golomb J, Linder A, Siegel Y, Korczak D: Variability and circadian changes in home uroflowmetry in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia compared to normal controls. J Urol 1992;147:1044–1047.
5.
Jørgensen JB, Jensen KM-E, Klarskov P, Bernstein I, Abel I, Mogensen P: Intra- and inter-observer variations in classification of urinary flow curve patterns. Neurourol Urodyn 1990;9:535–539.
6.
Rollema HJ: Uroflowmetry in males: Reference Values and Clinical Application in Benign Prostatic Hypertrophy. Groningen, Drukkerij van Denderen BV, 1981.
7.
Christmas TJ, Chapple CR, Rickards D, Milroy EJG, Turner-Warwick RT: Contemporary flow meters: An assessment of their accuracy and reliability. Br J Urol 1989;63:460–461.
8.
Bland JM, Altman DG: Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986;i:307–310.
9.
British Standards Institution: Precision of Test Methods. I. Guide for the Determination and Reproducibility for a Standard Test Method (BS 5497, part 1). London, BSI, 1979.
10.
Reynard JM, Peters TJ, Lim C, Abrams P: The value of multiple free-flow studies in men with lower urinary tract symptoms. Br J Urol 1996;77:813–818.
11.
de la Rosette JJMCH, Witjes WPJ, Debruyne FMJ, Kersten PL, Wijkstra H: Improved reliability of uroflow investigations: Results of a portable home-based flowmeter study. Br J Urol 1996;78:385–390.
12.
Drach GW, Layton T, Bottaccini MR: A method of adjustment of male peak urinary flow rate for varying age and volume voided. J Urol 1982;128:960–962.
13.
Siroky MB, Olsson CA, Krane RJ: The flow rate nomogram. I. Development. J Urol 1979;122:665–668.
14.
Haylen BT, Ashby D, Sutherst JR, Frazer MI, West CR: Maximum and average urine flow rates in normal male and female populations – The Liverpool nomograms. Br J Urol 1989;64:330–338.
15.
Rollema HJ, van Mastrigt R: Objective analysis of prostatism: A clinical application of the computer program Clim. Neurourol Urodyn 1991;10:71–76.
16.
Tubaro A, Carter S, de la Rosette J, Höfner K, Trucchi A, Ogden C, Miano L, Valenti M, Jonas U, Debruyne F: The prediction of clinical outcome from transurethral microwave thermotherapy by pressure-flow analysis: A European multicenter study. J Urol 1995;153:1526–1530.
17.
Ezz El Din K, Kiemeney LALM, de Wildt MJAM, Rosier PFWM, Debruyne FMJ, de la Rosette JJMCH: The correlation between bladder outlet obstruction and lower urinary tract symptoms as measured by the international prostate symptom score. J Urol 1996;156:1020–1025.
18.
Ezz El Din K, Kiemeney LALM, de Wildt MJAM, Debruyne FMJ, de la Rosette JJMCH: Correlation between uroflowmetry, prostate volume, postvoid residue, and lower urinary tract symptoms as measured by the international prostate symptom score. Urology 1996;48:393–397.
19.
Rosier PFWM, de Wildt MJAM, Wijkstra H, Debruyne FMJ, de la Rosette JJMCH: Clinical diagnosis of bladder outlet obstruction in patients with benign prostatic enlargement and lower urinary tract symptoms: Development and urodynamic validation of a clinical prostate score for the objective diagnosis of bladder outlet obstruction. J Urol 1995;155:1649–1654.
1998
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.