Uroflowmetry in healthy women: A systematic review

Publication date

2017-04

Authors

Sorel, Marique Renee
Reitsma, Johannes B.ISNI 0000000389855461
Rosier, PeterORCID 0000-0003-0445-4563ISNI 0000000369944651
Bosch, J. L. H. RuudISNI 0000000370710705
de Kort, Laetitia

Editors

Advisors

Supervisors

Document Type

Article

Collections

Open Access logo

License

taverne

Abstract

Background: Although uroflowmetry is a widely used diagnostic test, reference values of uroflowmetry parameters in women are lacking making it difficult to interpret the test results. Aim: To quantify the range of results in uroflowmetry parameters in healthy women based on a systematic review. Methods: A search was made in the International Continence Society standardization articles, PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library (from inception to 27 February 2014). Studies on uroflowmetry in healthy women were included. The selected articles were examined using a critical appraisal process based on the QUADAS-2 tool and the Critical Appraisal Skills Program. Results: Mean values of uroflowmetry parameters in healthy women (mean age 37.1 years) were: voided volume (VV) 338 ml (SD 161), maximum flow rate (Qmax) 23.5 ml/s (SD 10), average flow rate (Qave) 13 ml/s (SD 6), postvoid residual (PVR) 15.5 ml (SD 25), voiding time (VT) 29 sec (SD 17), and time to maximum flow rate (time to Qmax) 8 sec (SD 6). Qmax was dependent on VV. There was no clear relationship between Qmax and age, and no correlation between parity and Qmax. A normal shape of the uroflowmetry curve was seen in 70–80% of the flows. Conclusion: This systematic review provides an overview of the range of results of uroflowmetry parameters in healthy women. Neurourol. Urodynam. 36:953–959, 2017.

Keywords

Flow curve, Healthy women, Reference value, Uroflowmetry, Taverne, Clinical Neurology, Urology, Review, Journal Article

Citation

Sorel, M R, Reitsma, H J B, Rosier, P F W M, Bosch, R J L H R & de Kort, L M O 2017, 'Uroflowmetry in healthy women : A systematic review', Neurourology and Urodynamics, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 953–959. https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.23051