Prospective multicentric validation of a novel uroflowmetry device (Pflow™) against conventional gravimetric uroflowmetry
Arvind P. Ganpule, Ashish Rawandale-Patil, Kavan Anil Takvani, Lokesh G. Patni, Preeti Ashish Rawandale, Tanisha Pranish KushareABSTRACT
Background:
Conventional gravimetric uroflowmetry, although reliable, is restricted to clinical settings and may be influenced by inhibition and logistical constraints. The present study device is a gravity-driven volumetric uroflowmetry device that uses a calibrated multichamber collection system to derive standard uroflowmetry parameters without requiring electronics or external power. This study was done to assess the agreement between a novel portable uroflowmetry device (Pflow™) and conventional gravimetric uroflowmetry.
Materials and Methods:
This prospective two-center, comparative study was conducted over 12 months (July 2023–July 2024) across two tertiary urology centers and included 372 patients (292 males; mean age 50.3 ± 18.5 years). Measurements were recorded simultaneously using both the devices during a single voiding event. Parameters analyzed included voided volume, peak flow rate (Qmax), average flow rate (Qavg), and voiding time. Agreement was assessed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, Spearman correlation, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and Bland–Altman analysis.
Results:
No statistically significant differences were observed between the two methods for voided volume (271 mL vs. 270 mL, P = 0.440), voiding time (40 s vs. 38 s, P = 0.204), Qmax (15 mL/s vs. 14.4 mL/s, P = 0.209), and Qavg (9 mL/s vs. 10 mL/s, P = 0.739) and strong correlations were observed (ρ = 0.799–0.963, P < 0.001). ICC demonstrated excellent agreement for voided volume (0.963) and good agreement for all measured flow parameters. Bland–Altman analysis showed minimal bias.
Conclusion:
Pflow™ demonstrates good agreement with conventional uroflowmetry and may serve as a simple adjunct for monitoring urinary flow in clinical settings.