MP02-10 MENHEALTH UROFLOWMETRY APP IS EQUIVALENT TO STANDARD OFFICE UROFLOWMETRY

Abstract

You have accessJournal of UrologyUrodynamics/Lower Urinary Tract Dysfunction/Female Pelvic Medicine: Non-neurogenic Voiding Dysfunction I (MP02)1 Sep 2021MP02-10 MENHEALTH UROFLOWMETRY APP IS EQUIVALENT TO STANDARD OFFICE UROFLOWMETRY Michal Tavrovsky, and Roger E. Schultz Michal TavrovskyMichal Tavrovsky More articles by this author , and Roger E. SchultzRoger E. Schultz More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000001963.10AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: We compared standard Prometheus Office Uroflowmetry (POU) against the results obtained by a new MenHealth Uroflowmetry App (MUA). The MenHealth Uroflowmetry App (MUA) is a smart phone app that acquires and analyzes the sound of urine voided into a water filled commode. The program calculates maximum and average flow rates as well as volume voided. MUA can be downloaded by patients to their phones for use at home. METHODS: Only men were tested and all were older than 18 years. Group 1 included 47 volunteers with voiding symptoms suggesting overactive bladder and/or outlet obstruction. Group 2 included 15 men with no urinary complaints. Each participant conducted minimum 10 MUA measurements at home and two standard POU tests in our office. Maximum and average flow rates were recorded, as well as voided volume.A comparison of averaged results of MUA and POU was performed using a Bland-Altman analysis and a Passing-Bablok non-parametric regression analysis. Eight participants were excluded from this analysis - four men who did not operate the MUA properly (data was uninterpretable) and four men who could not properly perform the standard POU. A total of 54 participants (43 in Group 1 and 11 in Group 2) were reviewed. RESULTS: Pearson Correlation coefficient R and correlation coefficient R2 during regression data analysis indicated a very strong correlation and fit between Max Flow rate and Average Flow rate when comparing MUA to POU. Slope value close to 1 indicates practically identical sensitivity to flow using both methods. Insignificant difference in mean Max and Average flow rates for Groups 1 and 2 (<0.5ml/s) also proves strong correlation between the two methods and the accuracy of MUA. Statistical analysis also shows no significant difference between the two measurement methods. Figure comparing Max flow rate between the two methods is shown. CONCLUSIONS: The “at home” use of MUA is equivalent to PUO for men with and without voiding symptoms. MUA may be advantageous for the study of men who may not void well in the office because of low urine volume or bashful bladder. MUA permits repetitive measurements without the need for an office visit. Data can be easily transmitted by phone. A few men are challenged by the use of this smart phone App, but more detailed instruction should help minimize any confusion. Source of Funding: None © 2021 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 206Issue Supplement 3September 2021Page: e15-e15 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2021 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Michal Tavrovsky More articles by this author Roger E. Schultz More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Loading ...