Our aim was to investigate the proposition that uroflowmetry patterns can be reliably interpreted and correspond with specific urodynamic diagnoses. Uroflowmetry traces from 129 women with diagnoses of either genuine stress incontinence or detrusor instability were interpreted by four physicians with a minimum of 6 months experience in urogynecology. To 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 traces, but no evidence of a correlation between urodynamic diagnosis and uroflowmetry pattern. Neither peak flow, total voided volume nor rate of acceleration of flow correlated with diagnosis. Although flow rates are important in predicting possible problems following surgery for stress incontinence, there is no evidence that flow patterns can be used as a screening test for specific urodynamic diagnoses.

No abstract