摘要
目的 探讨多次家庭尿流率测定和单次门诊尿流率测定的一致性.方法 参与家庭尿流率测定的男志愿者共27例,年龄19～37岁,平均年龄26.2岁.每位志愿者在门诊测定尿流率一次,再用移动式家庭尿流率仪连续测定全天的家庭尿流率.共测定家庭尿流率156次,平均每人5.78次.用Bland-Altman法分析两种方法测定的最大尿流率和平均尿流率的一致性.结果 两种方法测定的最大尿流率、平均尿流率的95％一致性界限均超过临床可接受的界限（5％×50mL/s）.44.4 ％（12/27）、48.15％（13/27）的最大尿流率和平均尿流率在临床可接受的界限内.结论 多次家庭尿流率测定和单次门诊尿流率测定间的一致性差,采用单次门诊尿流率测定来评价下尿路功能不可靠.
Objectives To investigate the agreement between the single office and multiple home uroflowmetry.Methods The single uroflow of 27 healthy young male volunteers （mean age 26.2 years,range 19 ～ 37） was measured with the portable home electronic uroflowmeter in out-patient department.Further,the portable home electronic uroflowmeter was set up at home and all voidings during a 24-hour period were recorded.It produced a total of 156 voidings using the portable home electronic uroflowmeter.The median voiding frequency was 5.78.Bland -Altman was used to analysis the agreement between the single office and multiple home uroflowmetry.Results The 95％ limits of agreement of Qmax and Qave are both beyond the clinical acceptable limits（5％ × 50ml/s）They are 44.4 ％ （12/27）,48.15％ （13/27） of Qmax and Qave within the clinical acceptable limits.Conclusions There is poor agreement between the single office and multiple home uroflowmetry.The single office uroflowmetry is not reliable in evaluation of lower urinary tract.
出处
《国际泌尿系统杂志》
2014年第5期702-704,共3页
International Journal of Urology and Nephrology
关键词
尿动力学
家庭
Urodynamics
Family
