Evaluating Urological Residents on Interpretation of Uroflowmetry Graphs
Abstract: Object of this study was to assess whether patients should be given only the uroflowmetry graph and report (computer report) or final diagnosis and opinion. 17 urological residents (clinical experience > 3 y and urology experience > 6 months) were assessed by flowmetry reports and graphs of five patients. Subjects were kept blind that report and graph was of same patient. Of the 85 results correct diagnosis was made in 40% and 34% based on report and graph respectively. Qmax was considered in 98.8% of results. Other parameters were less frequently considered. On cross tabulation of report and graph the correct diagnosis was 27%. It can be concluded that interpretation of the uroflowmetry is not easy. Majority of the clinicians have difficulty in interpreting it. It is recommended that final diagnosis be given with the uroflowmetry graph.
Key words: uroflowmetry, Qmax, Urological residents.
Copyright (c) 2010 Annals of King Edward Medical University
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
This is an open-access journal and all the published articles / items are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.