Bristol UTraQ: A proposed system for scoring the technical quality of urodynamic traces.
audit
quality
traces
urodynamics
Journal
Neurourology and urodynamics
ISSN: 1520-6777
Titre abrégé: Neurourol Urodyn
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8303326
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 2022
02 2022
Historique:
revised:
09
12
2021
received:
09
11
2021
accepted:
25
12
2021
pubmed:
16
1
2022
medline:
25
3
2022
entrez:
15
1
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To develop and test a scoring system for the technical quality of a urodynamic trace METHODS: Rasch analysis was used to select the most discriminating questions relating to good urodynamic practices. The questions were taken from International Continence Society standard documents and tested on 60 traces of varying quality and from different sources. Twenty-five questions were selected by this process. These were tested with 10 traces by seven scorers, and with 60 traces by a single scorer. A pass quality score of 75% resulted in good discrimination between good and poor traces. Further editing and clarification resulted in a final score sheet of 23 Yes/No questions. A proposed scoring system, "Bristol UTraQ," for the technical quality of urodynamic traces has been developed and tested. We suggest a score above 75% indicates acceptable trace technical quality. High technical quality is the essential first step in ensuring that urodynamic studies can answer the urodynamic questions for every patient. Plans for further validation are outlined.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
672-678Informations de copyright
© 2022 Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Références
Rosier PFWM, Schaefer W., Lose G., et al. International Continence Society good urodynamic practices and terms 2016: urodynamics, uroflowmetry, cystometry, and pressure-flow study. Neurourol Urodyn. 2017;36(5):1243-1260. doi:10.1002/nau.23124
Gammie A, Almeida F., Drake M., et al. Is the value of urodynamics undermined by poor technique?: ICI-RS 2018. Neurourol Urodyn. 2019;38(S5):S35-S39. doi:10.1002/nau.23978
Arlandis S, et al. Uroflowmetry quality evaluation in seven urodynamic departments: far from the excellence? Neurourol Urodyn. 2013;32(6):754-755.
Aiello M, Jelski J., Lewis A., et al. Quality control of uroflowmetry and urodynamic data from two large multicenter studies of male lower urinary tract symptoms. Neurourol Urodyn. 2020;39(4):1170-1177. doi:10.1002/nau.24337
Moore KC, Emery SJ, Lucas MG. Quality and quantity: an audit of urodynamics practice in relation to newly published national standards. Neurourol Urodyn. 2011;30(1):38-42. doi:10.1002/nau.20942
McCooty S, Latthe P. Quality control in urodynamics. Nurs Stand. 2013;27(43):35-38. doi:10.7748/ns2013.06.27.43.35.e7166
Schäfer W, Abrams P., Liao L., et al. Good urodynamic practices: uroflowmetry, filling cystometry, and pressure-flow studies. Neurourol Urodyn. 2002;21:261-274. doi:10.1002/nau.10066
Gammie A, Drake MJ. The fundamentals of uroflowmetry practice, based on International Continence Society good urodynamic practices recommendations. Neurourol Urodyn. 2018;37(S6):S44-S49. doi:10.1002/nau.23777
Drake MJ, Doumouchtsis SK., Hashim H., Gammie A. Fundamentals of urodynamic practice, based on International Continence Society good urodynamic practices recommendations. Neurourol Urodyn. 2018;37(S6):S50-S60. doi:10.1002/nau.23773
Gammie A, Clarkson B., Constantinou C., et al. International Continence Society guidelines on urodynamic equipment performance. Neurourol Urodyn. 2014;33(4):370-379. doi:10.1002/nau.22546
Boone WJ. Rasch analysis for instrument development: why, when, and how? CBE Life Sci Ed. 2016;15(4):rm4. doi:10.1187/cbe.16-04-0148
Working Group of the United Kingdom Continence Society, Abrams P., Eustice S., et al. United Kingdom Continence Society: Minimum standards for urodynamic studies, 2018. Neurourol Urodyn. 2019;38(2):838-856. doi:10.1002/nau.23909