Evidence Hub

Beyond urodynamics: non-invasive approaches to diagnosing detrusor underactivity in men with lower urinary tract symptoms - a systematic review

Garbas K, Zapała Ł, Ślusarczyk A, Piekarczyk H, Piecha T, Radziszewski P

BMC urology, 2025

7,390 participants · 7 citations

Abstract

Background: To evaluate and synthesize existing evidence on non-invasive methods for diagnosing detrusor underactivity (DU) in men presenting with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), focusing on their feasibility and diagnostic accuracy.

Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases was conducted for original articles reporting on non-invasive diagnostic tests for DU in men with LUTS. Data extraction focuses on study characteristics, diagnostic methods, and accuracy. The risk of bias was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool.

Results: Eighteen studies involving 7390 patients, of whom 3194 were diagnosed with DU, were included in our analysis. The evaluated diagnostic methods included ultrasound parameters, biomarkers, uroflowmetry results, symptom questionnaires, and clinical characteristics. Developed models, including those based on artificial intelligence (AI), and nomograms were also assessed. The symptom questionnaire DUA-SQ showed the highest sensitivity of 95.8%, while ultrasound measurements, such as detrusor wall thickness showed 100% specificity but limited sensitivity (42%). Models incorporating clinical variables achieved sensitivity rates of over 75%. Uroflowmetry parameters, particularly presence of "sawtooth" and "interrupted" waveforms, demonstrated sensitivity of 80% and specificity of 87%. Biomarkers, including serum adiponectin and urine NO/ATP ratio, achieved sensitivity of 79% and 88.5%, respectively. AI models showed…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 7,390 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free