Acknowledgements Jae Hung Jung, Murat Gul, Ege Can Serefoglu (translation of foreign language articles) and Karin Plass for administrative support.Peer reviewedPostprin

Arlandis, Salvador

Bø, Kari

Campi, Riccardo

Chapple, Christoper R.

Costantini, Elisabetta

Farag, Fawzy

Groen, Jan

Harding, Christopher K.

Karavitakis, Markos

Lapitan, Marie Carmela M.

Manso, Margarida

Monagas Arteaga, Serenella

Nambiar, Arjun K.

Nic An Ríogh, Aisling

O'Connor, Eabhann

Omar, Muhammad Imran

Osman, Nadir I.

Pang, Karl H.

Peyronnet, Benoit

Phé, Véronique

Sakalis, Vasileios I.

Sihra, Néha

Tzelves, Lazaros

van der vaart, Huub

Yuan, Yuhong

European Urology Focus

English

I Brage finner du siste tekst-versjon av artikkelen, og den kan inneholde ubetydelige forskjeller fra forlagets pdf-versjon. Forlagets pdf-versjon finner du på sciencedirect.com / In Brage you'll find the final text version of the article, and it may contain insignificant differences from the journal's pdf version. The definitive version is available at sciencedirect.com.Context: Female bladder outlet obstruction (fBOO) is a relatively uncommon condition compared with its male counterpart. Several criteria have been proposed to define fBOO, but the comparative diagnostic accuracy of these remains uncertain. Objective: To identify and compare different tests to diagnose fBOO through a systematic review process. Evidence acquisition: A systematic review of the literature was performed according to the Cochrane Handbook and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) checklist. The EMBASE/MEDLINE/Cochrane databases were searched up to August 4, 2020. Studies on women ≥18 yr of age with suspected bladder outlet obstruction (BOO) involving diagnostic tests were included. Pressure-flow studies or fluoroscopy was used as the reference standard where possible. Two reviewers independently screened all articles, searched reference lists of retrieved articles, and performed data extraction. The risk of bias was assessed using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2). Evidence synthesis: Overall, 28 nonrandomised studies involving 10 248 patients were included in the qualitative analysis. There was significant heterogeneity regarding the characteristics of women included in BOO cohorts (ie, mixed cohorts including both anatomical and functional BOO). Pressure-flow studies ± fluoroscopy was evaluated in 25 studies. Transperineal Doppler ultrasound was used to evaluate bladder neck dynamics in two studies. One study tested the efficacy of transvaginal ultrasound. The urodynamic definition of fBOO also varied amongst studies with different parameters and thresholds used, which precluded a meta-analysis. Three studies derived nomograms using the maximum flow rate (Qmax) and voiding detrusor pressure at Qmax. The sensitivity, specificity, and overall accuracy ranges were 54.6–92.5%, 64.6–93.9%, and 64.1–92.2%, respectively. Conclusions_ The available evidence on diagnostic tests for fBOO is limited and heterogeneous. Pressure-flow studies ± fluoroscopy remains the current standard for diagnosing fBOO.acceptedVersionInstitutt for idrettsmedisinske fag / Department of Sports Medicin

Chapple, Christopher R.

Lapitan, Marie Carmela

Arteaga, Serenella Monagas

van der Vaart, Huub

Harding, Christopher

Brage NIH (Norwegian School of Sport Sciences)

Diagnostic Tests for Female Bladder Outlet Obstruction: A Systematic Review from the European Association of Urology Non-neurogenic Female LUTS Guidelines Panel

Context: Female bladder outlet obstruction (fBOO) is a relatively uncommon condition compared with its male counterpart. Several criteria have been proposed to define fBOO, but the comparative diagnostic accuracy of these remains uncertain. Objective: To identify and compare different tests to diagnose fBOO through a systematic review process. Evidence acquisition: A systematic review of the literature was performed according to the Cochrane Handbook and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) checklist. The EMBASE/MEDLINE/Cochrane databases were searched up to August 4, 2020. Studies on women ≥18 yr of age with suspected bladder outlet obstruction (BOO) involving diagnostic tests were included. Pressure-flow studies or fluoroscopy was used as the reference standard where possible. Two reviewers independently screened all articles, searched reference lists of retrieved articles, and performed data extraction. The risk of bias was assessed using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2). Evidence synthesis: Overall, 28 nonrandomised studies involving 10 248 patients were included in the qualitative analysis. There was significant heterogeneity regarding the characteristics of women included in BOO cohorts (ie, mixed cohorts including both anatomical and functional BOO). Pressure-flow studies ± fluoroscopy was evaluated in 25 studies. Transperineal Doppler ultrasound was used to evaluate bladder neck dynamics in two studies. One study tested the efficacy of transvaginal ultrasound. The urodynamic definition of fBOO also varied amongst studies with different parameters and thresholds used, which precluded a meta-analysis. Three studies derived nomograms using the maximum flow rate (Qmax) and voiding detrusor pressure at Qmax. The sensitivity, specificity, and overall accuracy ranges were 54.6–92.5%, 64.6–93.9%, and 64.1–92.2%, respectively. Conclusions: The available evidence on diagnostic tests for fBOO is limited and heterogeneous. Pressure-flow studies ± fluoroscopy remains the current standard for diagnosing fBOO. Patient summary: Evidence on tests used to diagnose female bladder outlet obstruction was reviewed. The most common test used was pressure-flow studies ± fluoroscopy, which remains the current standard for diagnosing bladder outlet obstruction in women. Take Home Message: The available evidence on diagnostic tests for female bladder outlet obstruction is limited and heterogeneous. The most common test used was video-urodynamics, which remains the current standard for diagnosing bladder outlet obstruction in women

Bo, Kari

Nic An Ríogh, Aisling U.

O'Connor, Eabhann M.

Utrecht University Repository

Context: Female bladder outlet obstruction (fBOO) is a relatively uncommon condition compared with its male counterpart. Several criteria have been proposed to define fBOO, but the comparative diagnostic accuracy of these remains uncertain. Objective: To identify and compare different tests to diagnose fBOO through a systematic review process. Evidence acquisition: A systematic review of the literature was performed according to the Cochrane Handbook and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) checklist. The EMBASE/MEDLINE/Cochrane databases were searched up to August 4, 2020. Studies on women ≥18 yr of age with suspected bladder outlet obstruction (BOO) involving diagnostic tests were included. Pressure-flow studies or fluoroscopy was used as the reference standard where possible. Two reviewers independently screened all articles, searched reference lists of retrieved articles, and performed data extraction. The risk of bias was assessed using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2). Evidence synthesis: Overall, 28 nonrandomised studies involving 10 248 patients were included in the qualitative analysis. There was significant heterogeneity regarding the characteristics of women included in BOO cohorts (ie, mixed cohorts including both anatomical and functional BOO). Pressure-flow studies ± fluoroscopy was evaluated in 25 studies. Transperineal Doppler ultrasound was used to evaluate bladder neck dynamics in two studies. One study tested the efficacy of transvaginal ultrasound. The urodynamic definition of fBOO also varied amongst studies with different parameters and thresholds used, which precluded a meta-analysis. Three studies derived nomograms using the maximum flow rate (Qmax) and voiding detrusor pressure at Qmax. The sensitivity, specificity, and overall accuracy ranges were 54.6–92.5%, 64.6–93.9%, and 64.1–92.2%, respectively. Conclusions: The available evidence on diagnostic tests for fBOO is limited and heterogeneous. Pressure-flow studies ± fluoroscopy remains the current standard for diagnosing fBOO. Patient summary: Evidence on tests used to diagnose female bladder outlet obstruction was reviewed. The most common test used was pressure-flow studies ± fluoroscopy, which remains the current standard for diagnosing bladder outlet obstruction in women. Take Home Message: The available evidence on diagnostic tests for female bladder outlet obstruction is limited and heterogeneous. The most common test used was video-urodynamics, which remains the current standard for diagnosing bladder outlet obstruction in women.</p

EUR Research Repository

Diagnostic Tests for Female Bladder Outlet Obstruction:A Systematic Review from the European Association of Urology Non-neurogenic Female LUTS Guidelines Panel

Acknowledgements Jae Hung Jung, Murat Gul, Ege Can Serefoglu (translation of foreign language articles) and Karin Plass for administrative support.Peer reviewe

Aberdeen University Research

Diagnostic Tests for Female Bladder Outlet Obstruction : A Systematic Review from the European Association of Urology Non-neurogenic Female LUTS Guidelines Panel

NARCIS 

Context: Female bladder outlet obstruction (fBOO) is a relatively uncommon condition compared with its male counterpart. Several criteria have been proposed to define fBOO, but the comparative diagnostic accuracy of these remains uncertain. Objective: To identify and compare different tests to diagnose fBOO through a systematic review process. Evidence acquisition: A systematic review of the literature was performed according to the Cochrane Handbook and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) checklist. The EMBASE/MEDLINE/Cochrane databases were searched up to August 4, 2020. Studies on women ≥18 yr of age with suspected bladder outlet obstruction (BOO) involving diagnostic tests were included. Pressure-flow studies or fluoroscopy was used as the reference standard where possible. Two reviewers independently screened all articles, searched reference lists of retrieved articles, and performed data extraction. The risk of bias was assessed using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2). Evidence synthesis: Overall, 28 nonrandomised studies involving 10 248 patients were included in the qualitative analysis. There was significant heterogeneity regarding the characteristics of women included in BOO cohorts (ie, mixed cohorts including both anatomical and functional BOO). Pressure-flow studies ± fluoroscopy was evaluated in 25 studies. Transperineal Doppler ultrasound was used to evaluate bladder neck dynamics in two studies. One study tested the efficacy of transvaginal ultrasound. The urodynamic definition of fBOO also varied amongst studies with different parameters and thresholds used, which precluded a meta-analysis. Three studies derived nomograms using the maximum flow rate (Qmax) and voiding detrusor pressure at Qmax. The sensitivity, specificity, and overall accuracy ranges were 54.6–92.5%, 64.6–93.9%, and 64.1–92.2%, respectively. Conclusions_ The available evidence on diagnostic tests for fBOO is limited and heterogeneous. Pressure-flow studies ± fluoroscopy remains the current standard for diagnosing fBOO

NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives

https://aura.abdn.ac.uk/bitstream/2164/19145/1/Pang_etal_EUF_Diagnostic_tests_for_AAM.pdf

Diagnostic Tests for Female Bladder Outlet Obstruction : A Systematic Review from the European Association of Urology Non-neurogenic Female LUTS Guidelines Panel

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Brage NIH (Norwegian School of Sport Sciences)

Utrecht University Repository

EUR Research Repository

EUR Research Repository

Aberdeen University Research

NARCIS

NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives