4.5 Article

Prevalence and factors associated with uncomplicated storage and voiding lower urinary tract symptoms in community-dwelling Australian men

期刊

WORLD JOURNAL OF UROLOGY
卷 29, 期 2, 页码 179-184

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00345-010-0605-8

关键词

Prostatism/epidemiology; Urinary tract physiological phenomena; Cohort studies; Men's health; Australia/epidemiology

资金

  1. South Australian Government
  2. NHMRC [511345]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To determine the prevalence of, and associated risk factors for, voiding and storage lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in a population-based sample of Australian men. Data were collected from 1,103 men randomly selected, community-dwelling men, as part of the Florey Adelaide Male Ageing Study, after exclusion of men with prostate or bladder cancer or prior surgery to either organ. The presence of LUTS was assessed using the International Prostate Symptom Score. Urine flow was measured via flow meter. Demographic, clinical, and bio-psychosocial data were collected by questionnaire. The prevalence of total, storage, and voiding LUTS was 18.1, 28.0 and 12.6%, respectively. The most common storage symptoms were frequency (12.3%), nocturia (9.9%) and urgency (8.1%), and voiding symptoms were weak stream (8.5%), intermittency (5.4%), incomplete emptying (5.1%) and straining (2.4%). There were linear associations between storage LUTS and increased abdominal fat mass, plasma glucose and low HDL cholesterol (components of the metabolic syndrome), obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) risk, and retirement. Voiding symptoms were associated with a previous diagnosis of benign prostatic enlargement (BPH), mean peak urine flow, total energy intake, elevated risk of OSA, erectile dysfunction, physician-diagnosed thyroid dysfunction and higher household income. The close association of storage LUTS with the metabolic syndrome, and of both storage and voiding LUTS with OSA, suggest that these conditions should be considered in men presenting with LUTS.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据