Our aim was to investigate the proposition that uroflowmetry patterns can b
e reliably interpreted and correspond with specific urodynamic diagnoses. U
roflowmetry traces from 129 women with diagnoses of either genuine stress i
ncontinence or detrusor instability were interpreted by four physicians wit
h a minimum of 6 months experience in urogynecology. So test intraobserver
variability, the traces were classified a second time 8 weeks later. Inter-
and intraobserver variability was calculated by kappa analysis. There was
marked intra- and interobserver variability in classification of tracts, bu
t no evidence of a correlation between urodynamic diagnosis and uroflowmetr
y pattern. Neither peak flow, total voided volume nor rate of acceleration
of flow correlated with diagnosis. Although flow rates are important in pre
dicting possible problems following surgery for stress incontinence, there
is no evidence that flow patterns can be used as a screening test for speci
fic urodynamic diagnoses.