3.9 Article

Timed micturition and maximum urinary flow rate in randomly selected symptom-free males

Journal

SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF UROLOGY AND NEPHROLOGY
Volume 38, Issue 2, Pages 136-142

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS AS
DOI: 10.1080/00365590310001737

Keywords

flow measurement; normal distribution; timed micturition; urinary flow rate; urinary tract physiology; urination

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To establish normal ranges for timed micturition, i.e. the time to void the first 100 ml, study its dependency on voided volume and age and compare it to maximum flow rate. Material and Methods: Randomly selected men from the National Register without voiding symptoms were investigated. These 58 men (aged 30-75 years) registered 1286 voidings (median 21 per person) at home with the aid of a portable uroflowmeter. Timed micturition and maximum flow rate were obtained from the same voidings. Results: An increase in timed micturition with an increase in age was confirmed. When estimating normal ranges it was sufficient to use the age groups less than or equal to55 years and greater than or equal to56 years. Maximum flow rate is shown in nomograms with voided volume. Timed micturition had less dependency on voided volume than maximum flow rate. The normal ranges of timed micturition are less than or equal to9 s for men aged less than or equal to55 years and less than or equal to15 s for those aged greater than or equal to56 years. The true median of timed micturition for men aged greater than or equal to56 years may be 6 s lower or 2.5 s higher than the value of a single measurement. Corresponding figures for maximum flow rate are 5 and 6 ml/s. Conclusions: Timed micturition has a low dependency on volume and values of less than or equal to9 s and less than or equal to15 s are normal for men aged less than or equal to55 years and greater than or equal to56 years, respectively.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.9
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available