VSI Q控制图可以解决经典休哈特控制图在样本数据缺乏的情况下不能应用的问题,并且可以加快检出速度。具体方法是将样本数据转换成服从标准正态分布的统计数据,再利用可变抽样区间技术确定抽样间隔时间。应用研究证明,VSI Q控制图在缺...VSI Q控制图可以解决经典休哈特控制图在样本数据缺乏的情况下不能应用的问题,并且可以加快检出速度。具体方法是将样本数据转换成服从标准正态分布的统计数据,再利用可变抽样区间技术确定抽样间隔时间。应用研究证明,VSI Q控制图在缺乏样本数据时也能用于监控生产过程,快速检测出异常。展开更多
Summary： We performed a retrospective, case-control study to evaluate whether the urine flow acceleration （UFA, mL/s2） is superior to maximum uroflow （Qmax, mL/s） in diagnosing bladder outlet obstruction （BOO） ...Summary： We performed a retrospective, case-control study to evaluate whether the urine flow acceleration （UFA, mL/s2） is superior to maximum uroflow （Qmax, mL/s） in diagnosing bladder outlet obstruction （BOO） in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia （BPH）. In this study, a total of 50 men with BPH （age： 58±12.5 years） and 50 controls （age： 59±13.0 years） were included. A pressure-flow study was used to determine the presence of BOO according to the recommendations of Incontinence Control Society （ICS）. The results showed that the UFA and Qmax in BPH group were much lower than those in the control group [（2.05±0.85） vs. （4.60±1.25） mL/s2 and （8.50±1.05） vs. （13.00±3.35） mL/s] （P〈0.001）. Accol;ding to the criteria （UFA〈2.05 mL/s2, Qmax〈10 mL/s）, the sensitivity and specificity of UFA vs. Qmax in diagnosing BOO were 88%, 75% vs. 81%, 63%. UFA vs. Omax, when compared with the results of P-Q chart （the kappa values in corresponding analysis）, was 0.55 vs. 0.35. The pros- tate volume, post void residual and detrusor pressure at Qmax between the two groups were 28.6±9.8 vs. 24.2±7.6 mL, 60.4±1.4 vs. 21.3±2.5 mL and 56.6±8.3 vs. 21.7±6.1 cmHzO, respectively （P〈0.05）. It was concluded that the UFA is a useful urodynamic parameter, and is superior to Qmax in diagnosing BOO in patients with BPH.展开更多
文摘Summary： We performed a retrospective, case-control study to evaluate whether the urine flow acceleration （UFA, mL/s2） is superior to maximum uroflow （Qmax, mL/s） in diagnosing bladder outlet obstruction （BOO） in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia （BPH）. In this study, a total of 50 men with BPH （age： 58±12.5 years） and 50 controls （age： 59±13.0 years） were included. A pressure-flow study was used to determine the presence of BOO according to the recommendations of Incontinence Control Society （ICS）. The results showed that the UFA and Qmax in BPH group were much lower than those in the control group [（2.05±0.85） vs. （4.60±1.25） mL/s2 and （8.50±1.05） vs. （13.00±3.35） mL/s] （P〈0.001）. Accol;ding to the criteria （UFA〈2.05 mL/s2, Qmax〈10 mL/s）, the sensitivity and specificity of UFA vs. Qmax in diagnosing BOO were 88%, 75% vs. 81%, 63%. UFA vs. Omax, when compared with the results of P-Q chart （the kappa values in corresponding analysis）, was 0.55 vs. 0.35. The pros- tate volume, post void residual and detrusor pressure at Qmax between the two groups were 28.6±9.8 vs. 24.2±7.6 mL, 60.4±1.4 vs. 21.3±2.5 mL and 56.6±8.3 vs. 21.7±6.1 cmHzO, respectively （P〈0.05）. It was concluded that the UFA is a useful urodynamic parameter, and is superior to Qmax in diagnosing BOO in patients with BPH.
