Diagnostic Tests for Female Bladder Outlet Obstruction: A Systematic Review from the European Association of Urology Non-neurogenic Female LUTS Guidelines Panel
Pang, Karl H.; Campi, Riccardo; Arlandis, Salvador; Bo, Kari; Chapple, Christopher R.; Costantini, Elisabetta; Farag, Fawzy; Groen, Jan; Karavitakis, Markos; Lapitan, Marie Carmela; Manso, Margarida; Monagas Arteaga, Serenella; Nambiar, Arjun K.; Nic An Ríogh, Aisling U.; O'Connor, Eabhann M.; Osman, Nadir I.; Peyronnet, Benoit; Phé, Véronique; Sakalis, Vasileios I.; Sihra, Néha; Tzelves, Lazaros; van der vaart, Huub; Yuan, Yuhong; Omar, Muhammad Imran; Harding, Christopher K.
(2022) European Urology Focus, volume 8, issue 4, pp. 1015 - 1030
(Article)
Abstract
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:
... read more
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.
show less
Download/Full Text
The full text of this publication is not available.
Keywords: Accuracy, Bladder outlet obstruction, Diagnosis, Female, Lower urinary tract symptoms, Test, Urodynamics, Urology
ISSN: 2405-4569
Publisher: Elsevier
Note: Funding Information: Financial disclosures: Muhammad Imran Omar certifies that all conflicts of interest, including specific financial interests and relationships and affiliations relevant to the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript (eg, employment/affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, or patents filed, received, or pending), are the following: K.H. Pang and R. Campi: none. S. Arlandis: consultant for, and speaker honorarium fellowship and travel grants from Astellas; speaker honorarium from Medtronic, Lacer, and Bayer; consultant for Wellspect, Fidia Pharma, and Gebro; consultant for, and fellowship and travel grants from Coloplast; speaker honorarium fellowship and travel grants from Boston. K. Bo: none. C.R. Chapple: speaker and investigator for Allergan; author, consultant, investigator, and speaker for Astellas Pharma; investigator for Bayer Schering Parma AG; consultant for Contura; author and consultant for Ferring; consultant and patent for Symimetic; consultant for Urovant Sciences. E.M. Costantini: speaker fee from Astellas and Neomedic; research grant from SR Pharmaceutical. F. Farag and J. Groen: none. M. Karavitakis: speaker fee from Astellas. M.C. Lapitan: speaker fee from Astellas; former part-time employee of GSK (July 2016–September 2020). M. Manso, S. Monagras Arteaga, A.K. Nambiar, A. Nic An Ríogh, E. O'Connor, and N.I. Osman: none. B. Peyronnet: consultant for Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Pierre Fabre, Contura, and Allergan. V. Phé: consultant for Medtronic and Viatris; investigator at Convatec. V.I. Sakalis and N. Sihra: none. L. Tzelves: investigator in ASCAPE project (Artificial intelligence use for predicting quality of life issues in patients with prostate cancer), funded by European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant agreement No 875351. H. van der vaart, Y. Yuan, and M.I. Omar MI: none. C.K. Harding: speaker fee from Astellas, Allergan, and Medtronic; advisory board/consultancy at Astellas, Teleflex Medical, and GSK; educational grant from Medtronic; research grants from UK National Institute of Health Research and the Urology Foundation. Publisher Copyright: © 2021 European Association of Urology
(Peer reviewed)