Relationship between maximum voided volume obtained by bladder diary compared to contemporaneous urofl owmetry in men and women

5Citations
Citations of this article
4Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Introduction: The 24-hour bladder diary is considered to be the gold standard for evaluating maximum voided volume (MVV). However, we observed that patients often have a greater MVV during offi ce urofl owmetry than that seen in the bladder diary. The purpose of this study is to compare these two non-invasive methods by which MVV can be determined - at the time of urofl owmetry (Q-MVV), or by 24hour bladder diary (BD-MVV). Materials and Methods: This was an Institutional Review Board approved retrospective study of patients evaluated for LUTS who completed a 24hour bladder diary and contemporaneous urofl owmetry. For Q-MVV, the patient was instructed to wait to void until their bladder felt full. Sample means were compared, and Pearson’s correlations were calculated between the Q-MVV and BD-MVV data across the total sample, women, and men. Results: Seven hundred seventy one patients with LUTS completed bladder diaries. Of these, 400 patients, 205 women and 195 men, had contemporaneous Q-MVV. Mean BDMVV was greater than mean Q-MVV. However, Q-MVV was larger in a sizable minority of patients. There was a weak correlation between BD-MVV and Q-MVV. Furthermore, there was a difference ≥50% between Q-MVV and BD-MVV in 165 patients (41%). Conclusions: The data suggest that there is a difference between the two measurement tools, and that the BD-MVV was greater than Q-MVV. For a more reliable assessment of MVV, this study suggests that both Q-MVV and BD-MVV should be assessed and that the larger of the two values is a more reliable assessment of MVV

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Rychik, K., Policastro, L., Weiss, J., & Blaivas, J. (2021). Relationship between maximum voided volume obtained by bladder diary compared to contemporaneous urofl owmetry in men and women. International Braz J Urol, 47(6), 1189–1194. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2021.0211

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free