Can multicentre urodynamic studies provide high quality evidence for the clinical effectiveness of urodynamics? ICI‐RS 2019

• Published in: Neurourology and urodynamics Vol. 39; no. S3; pp. S30 - S35
• Main Authors: Rademakers, Kevin, Gammie, Andrew, Yasmin, Habiba, Cardozo, Linda, Greenwell, Tamsin, Harding, Christopher, Kirschner‐Hermanns, Ruth, Marcelissen, Tom, Finazzi‐Agro, Enrico
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Wiley Subscription Services, Inc 01.07.2020; John Wiley and Sons Inc
• Subjects: big data; Controversial Topic; Diagnostic Techniques, Urological; Humans; ICI‐RS 2019; Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms - diagnosis; Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms - physiopathology; LUTS; Multicenter Studies as Topic; multicentre urodynamics; Population studies; Quality control; United Kingdom; Urinary Bladder - physiopathology; Urinary tract; Urodynamics - physiology; United Kingdom; multicentre urodynamics; LUTS; ICI-RS 2019; big data
• ISSN: 0733-2467; 1520-6777
• DOI: 10.1002/nau.24280

Aims Lower urinary tract (LUT) function can be investigated by urodynamic studies (UDS) to establish underlying functional abnormalities in the LUT. A multicentre registry could present an opportunity to improve the scientific evidence base for UDS. During the International Consultation on Incontinence Research Society (ICI‐RS) meeting in Bristol, United Kingdom 2019, an expert panel discussed the potential of a multicentre urodynamic registry to improve the quality of urodynamic output. Methods the potential importance of a multicentre urodynamic registry, parameter inclusion, quality control, and pitfalls during a registry roll‐out were reviewed and discussed. Results and Conclusions The clinical utility, evaluation, and effectiveness of UDS remain poorly defined due to a lack of high quality evidence and large study populations. Therefore, the ICI‐RS proposes formation of a urodynamic panel for future roll‐out of a registry. The inclusion of basic parameters was discussed and the essential parameters were defined as well as the potential pitfalls of a registry roll‐out. The discussion and recommendations in this paper form the base for future urodynamic registry development.