Published 2021-01-15
I Made Suyadnya Yacobda Sigumonrong


Objective: We evaluated the comparability and repeatability of analyses based on uroflowmetry reports among urologists in Indonesia. Material & Methods: We assessed the inter-observer agreement when interpreting urodynamic examinations. Four urologists analyzed 20 sets of uroflowmetry data and gave their interpretations of the normality of the curve, reason of abnormality, grade classification, and pattern of the uroflowmetry curves. The consensus among observers was analyzed using the kappa statistic. Results: The kappa values for the analyses of the normality of the curves indicated fair to the moderate agreement. Agreement on the reason of abnormality showed poor to fair consensus. The shape of the flow curve had kappa values ranging from 0.047 to 0.225, indicating poor to fair consensus. Based on grade also showed kappa value from 0.047 to 0.169, indicating a poor agreement. Conclusion: Interpretations of uroflowmetry tracings showed only the poor to a fair agreement despite the normality of the uroflow curve. Variability in interpretation can strongly impact patient treatment. Therefore, further work is needed to standardize the reporting and interpretation of uroflowmetry studies to optimize patient care.



uroflowmetry, observer variation, inter-observer


Lacovelli V, Farullo G, Turbanti A, Agro EF. Videourodynamic in Children. In: Giovanni M, Del Popolo G, editors. Clinical Urodynamics in Childhood and Adolescence. Springer; 2018. p. 96

National Clinical Guideline Centre (UK). The Management of Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms in Men. London: Royal College of Physicians (UK); 2010.

Bauer SB, Nijman RJ, Drzewiecki BA, et al. International Children’s Continence Society Standardization Report on Urodynamic Studies of the Lower Urinary Tract in Children. Neurourology and Urodynamics. 2015; 34: 640–7.

Neveus T, Von Gontard A, Hoebeke P, Hjalmas K, Bauer S, Bower W, et al. The standardization of terminology of lower urinary tract function in children and adolescents: report from the Standardisation Committee of the International Children’s Continence Society. J Urol. 2006; 176: 314e24.

Pridgeon S, Harding C, Newton D, Pickard R. Clinical evaluation of a simple uroflowmeter for categorization of maximum urinary flow rate. Indian J Urol. 2007; 23(2): 114-8.

Austin PF, Bauer SB, Bower W, et al. The standardization of terminology of lower urinary tract function in children and adolescents: update report from the standardization committee of the international children’s continence society. J Urol. 2014; 191: 1863–5.

Bower WF, Kwok B, Yeung CK. Variability in normative urine flow rates. J Urol. 2004; 171: 2657–9.

Hoebeke P, Bower W, Combs A, et al. Diagnostic evaluation of children with daytime incontinence. J Urol. 2010; 183: 699–703.

Norgaard JP, Van Gool JD, Hjalmas K, Djurhuus JC, Hellstrom AL. Standardization and definitions in lower urinary tract dysfunction in children. International Children’s Continence Society. Br J Urol. 1998; 81 (Suppl. 3): 1-16

C. H. Fry, M. Hussain, C. McCarthy, Y. Ikeda, G.-P. Sui & C. Wu. Recent advances in detrusor muscle function, Scandinavian Journal of Urology and Nephrology. 2004; 38: 215, 20-5.

Schaefer W, Abrams P, Liao L, Good urodynamic practices: uroflowmetry, filling cystometry and pressure-flow studies. In: Cardozo L, Staskin D. Textbook of Female Urology and Urogynecology. CRC Press; 2017. p. 1364-8.

Alyami F, Farhat W, Figueroa VH, Romao RL. Utility and cost-effectiveness of uroflowmetry in a busy pediatric urology practice. Can Urol Assoc J. 2014; 8(9-10): 615-8.

Venhola M, Reunanen M, Taskinen S, Lahdes-vasama T, Uhari M. Interobserver and Intra-observer agreement in interpreting urodynamic measurements in children. 2003; 169(6): 2344–6.

Chang S, Yang SSD. Inter-observer and intra-observer agreement on interpretation of uroflowmetry curves of kindergarten children. J Pediatr Urol. 2008; 422–7.

Van de Beek C, Stoevelaar HJ, McDonnell J, Nijs HG, Casparie AF, Janknegt RA. Interpretation of uroflowmetry curves by urologists. J Urol 1997; 157: 164-8.

Gacci M, Del PG, Artibani W, Tubaro A, Palli D, Vittori G, et al. Visual assessment of uroflowmetry curves: description and interpretation by urodynamists. World J Urol. 2007; 25: 333-7.

Altunay S, Telatar Z, Erogul O, and Aydur E. A new approach to urinary system dynamics problems: Evaluation and classification of uroflowmeter signals using artificial neural networks. Expert Syst. 2009; 4891-5.

Copyright Information
Department of Urology, Faculty of Medicine/Airlangga University