@article{3120145,
    title = "Diagnostic Tests for Female Bladder Outlet Obstruction: A Systematic Review from the European Association of Urology Non-neurogenic Female LUTS Guidelines Panel",
    author = "Pang, K.H. and Campi, R. and Arlandis, S. and Bo, K. and Chapple, C.R. and Costantini, E. and Farag, F. and Groen, J. and Karavitakis, M. and Lapitan, M.C. and Manso, M. and Monagas Arteaga, S. and Nambiar, A.K. and Nic An Ríogh, A.U. and O'Connor, E.M. and Osman, N.I. and Peyronnet, B. and Phé, V. and Sakalis, V.I. and Sihra, N. and Tzelves, L. and van der vaart, H. and Yuan, Y. and Omar, M.I. and Harding, C.K.",
    journal = "European Urology Focus",
    year = "2021",
    publisher = "Elsevier B.V.",
    issn = "2405-4569",
    doi = "10.1016/j.euf.2021.09.003",
    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: 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. © 2021 European Association of Urology"
}