{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.019120458891013385, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0076481835564053535, 'mean_word_length': 5.181102362204724, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Applicability of a Disposable Home Urinary Flow Measuring Device as a Diagnostic Tool in the Management of Males with Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms

Introduction: To investigate the accuracy of uroflowmetry with disposable QSingle compared to measurements with a home-based digital device and compared to a single clinical measurement. Patients and Methods: 60 men with lower urinary tract symptoms were included in a prospective, open-label, multicenter study. Uroflowmetry measurements were done using three devices/methods: single clinic-based method, followed by up to 12 measurements using the disposable home-based QSingle and up to 12 measurements using a home-based digital device. Subjective data on ease of use of QSingle and preference of patients was investigated and objective measures of Qmax and voided volume from the three devices were compared. Results: Mean Qmax values of 12, 13 and 16 ml/s were achieved with the QSingle device, standard clinic method, and digital device, respectively. Mean Qmax obtained with the QSingle device did not differ from that obtained with the clinic method. A significantly higher mean Qmax was recorded for the digital device. Mean voided volumes recorded with each device differed marginally. Handling capabilities of the QSingle device were considered good by all subjects. Conclusions: The accuracy of Qmax and voided volume mean measurements with QSingle was comparable to one standard clinic recording. QSingle offers a viable alternative to reduce the number of clinic visits and can be used by other caregivers.