International journal of urology : official journal of the Japanese Urological Association · 2024
Validation of the area under the Watts factor curve during the voiding cycle as a novel parameter for diagnosing detrusor underactivity in females.
СтатьяВалидационное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kitta Takeya, Wada Naoki, Shinohara Satoshi, Hayashi Nagisa, Yamamura Hayato, Yamamoto Takayuki, Takagi Haruka, Hatakeyama Tsubasa, Nagabuchi Masaya, Morishita Shun, Tsunekawa Ryouken, Ohtani Miyu, Kobayashi Shin, Hori Jun-Ichi, Kakizaki Hidehiro
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Detrusor underactivity (DU) is a common cause of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS). To date, no consensus has been reached on the urodynamic criteria for defining DU. We previously proposed the area under the curve of the Watts factor (WF-AUC) as a new parameter for diagnosing DU. By comparing previously reported five criteria for DU and WF-AUC, we analyzed whether the WF-AUC could assess detrusor contraction in women with LUTS.
METHODS: Using urodynamic data of consecutive 77 women with LUTS, first, we classified DU based on previously reported five criteria. Second, we assessed the potential correlation between multiple parameters and WF-AUC. Third, receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was performed to determine the cutoff value of WF-AUC for diagnosing DU based on previously reported five criteria. Fourth, a linear regression analysis was conducted and compared using multiple criteria and female bladder outlet obstruction index (BOOIf).
RESULTS: WF-AUC was positively correlated with the maximum values of WF, bladder contractility index (BCI), and projected isovolumetric pressure 1 (PIP1) with correlation coefficients of 0.63, 0.57, and 0.34, respectively. AUC for diagnosing DU based on previously reported five criteria ranging from 0.773 to 0.896 with different cutoff values of AUC-WF. The Spearman's correlation test revealed that BOOIf was significantly correlated with BCI, but not Wmax, PIP1 and WF-AUC.
CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated the non-inferiority of the WF-AUC compared to previously reported criteria for defining DU. Depending on the cutoff value, the WF-AUC could appropriately evaluate women with DU, regardless of the presence of BOO.
METHODS: Using urodynamic data of consecutive 77 women with LUTS, first, we classified DU based on previously reported five criteria. Second, we assessed the potential correlation between multiple parameters and WF-AUC. Third, receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was performed to determine the cutoff value of WF-AUC for diagnosing DU based on previously reported five criteria. Fourth, a linear regression analysis was conducted and compared using multiple criteria and female bladder outlet obstruction index (BOOIf).
RESULTS: WF-AUC was positively correlated with the maximum values of WF, bladder contractility index (BCI), and projected isovolumetric pressure 1 (PIP1) with correlation coefficients of 0.63, 0.57, and 0.34, respectively. AUC for diagnosing DU based on previously reported five criteria ranging from 0.773 to 0.896 with different cutoff values of AUC-WF. The Spearman's correlation test revealed that BOOIf was significantly correlated with BCI, but not Wmax, PIP1 and WF-AUC.
CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated the non-inferiority of the WF-AUC compared to previously reported criteria for defining DU. Depending on the cutoff value, the WF-AUC could appropriately evaluate women with DU, regardless of the presence of BOO.