Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 9, 2026
Accuracy in Dental Medicine, A New Way to Measure Trueness and Precision
Published on: April 29, 2014
Avoid cruising on the uroflowmeter: evaluation of cruising artifact on spinning disc flowmeters in an experimental
Sanjai Kumar Addla1, Rajender Reddy Marri, Sai Lakshmi Daayana
1Royal Blackburn Hospital, East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust, Blackburn, United Kingdom. saddla@yahoo.co.uk
Aims:
The aim of our study was to access the variability of maximum flow rate (Q(max)), average flow rate (Q(av)) and flow pattern while varying the point of impact of flow on the flowmeter.
Methods:
Water was delivered through a motorised tube holder in a standardised experimental set up. Flow was directed in 4 different directions on the funnel; 1) Periphery, 2) Base, 3) Centre and, 4) in a cruising motion from the periphery of the funnel to the centre and back again. The variation in the Q(max), Q(av) and the flow pattern were studied at 4 different flow rates. The variables recorded when the flow was directed at the centre of the funnel was taken as baseline.
Results:
There was a significant difference in the Q(max) and Q(av)when the point of impact was at the periphery or in a cruising motion compared to the centre. The difference was more marked with cruising motion with a characteristic flow pattern. The maximum percentage difference in Q(av) was 4.1%, whereas the difference in Q(max) was higher at 16.6% on comparing crusing motion with the values from the centre.
Conclusion:
We have demonstrated a significant variation in Q(max), Q(av) and flow pattern with change in the point of impact on the flowmeter. Though the changes in Q(av) were statistically significant, the alteration in the recorded Q(max) values was more striking. Our study emphasizes the importance of combining Q(av) and flow pattern along with Q(max) in interpretation of results of uroflowmetry.
