Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Patterns and predictors of urodynamics use in the United States.

PURPOSE: Due to the paucity of data on urodynamics on the national level, we assessed the use of urodynamics in a large sample of individuals in the United States and identified predictors of increased complexity of urodynamic procedures.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using administrative health care claims for adults enrolled in private insurance plans in the United States from 2002 to 2007, we identified those who underwent cystometrogram and abstracted relevant demographic and clinical data. We used logistic regression to identify predictors of higher urodynamic complexity over basic cystometrogram, specifically cystometrogram plus pressure flow study and videourodynamics.

RESULTS: We identified 16,574 urodynamic studies, of which 23% were cystometrograms, 71% were cystometrograms plus pressure flow studies and 6% were videourodynamics. Stress incontinence was the most common clinical condition for all studies (33.7%), cystometrogram (30.8%), cystometrogram plus pressure flow study (35.4%) and videourodynamics (24.4%). Urologists performed 59.8% of all urodynamics and gynecologists performed 35.5%. Providers with 14 or more urodynamic studies during the study period performed 75% of all urodynamics and were more likely to perform cystometrogram plus pressure flow study and videourodynamics. On regression analysis the most consistent predictors of cystometrogram plus pressure flow study and/or videourodynamics over cystometrogram were specialty (urologist) and the number of urodynamic tests performed by the provider.

CONCLUSIONS: Most urodynamics in this series consisted of cystometrogram plus pressure flow study with stress incontinence the most common diagnosis. However, regardless of diagnosis, urologists and providers who performed more urodynamics were more likely to perform pressure flow study and/or videourodynamics in addition to cystometrogram. Further research is needed to determine whether these differences reflect gaps in the consistency or appropriateness of using urodynamics.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app