Ultrasound Determination of Prostate Volume: Comparison of Transrectal (Ellipsoid v Planimetry) and Suprapubic Methods

Nelson N. Stone; Paul S. Ray; Joseph A. Smith; Peter T. Scardino; Robert B. Smith; Om P. Khanna; David F. Paulson

doi:10.1089/end.1991.5.251

Ultrasound Determination of Prostate Volume: Comparison of Transrectal (Ellipsoid v Planimetry) and Suprapubic Methods

Nelson N. Stone, Paul S. Ray, Joseph A. Smith, Peter T. Scardino, Robert B. Smith, Om P. Khanna, David F. Paulson

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

19 Scopus citations

Abstract

In a multicenter randomized trial of treatment for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), three methods for determining prostate size were used. Data on sequential measurements of prostate volume in patients taking a placebo were used to determine the variability in the techniques. Suprapubic ultrasound scanning with measurements in three dimensions demonstrated a coefficient of variation of 30 %. Prostate volume determined by transrectal ultrasound and three measurements had in a variability of 12%. Step-section planimetry offered the lowest variability, 5%, and should be the method of choice in determining prostate size in clinical studies of BPH.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	251-254
Number of pages	4
Journal	Journal of Endourology
Volume	5
Issue number	3
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1089/end.1991.5.251
State	Published - 1991

Access to Document

10.1089/end.1991.5.251

Cite this

@article{6b6a10ee17014ba48c971300d4956562,

title = "Ultrasound Determination of Prostate Volume: Comparison of Transrectal (Ellipsoid v Planimetry) and Suprapubic Methods",

abstract = "In a multicenter randomized trial of treatment for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), three methods for determining prostate size were used. Data on sequential measurements of prostate volume in patients taking a placebo were used to determine the variability in the techniques. Suprapubic ultrasound scanning with measurements in three dimensions demonstrated a coefficient of variation of 30 %. Prostate volume determined by transrectal ultrasound and three measurements had in a variability of 12%. Step-section planimetry offered the lowest variability, 5%, and should be the method of choice in determining prostate size in clinical studies of BPH.",

author = "Stone, {Nelson N.} and Ray, {Paul S.} and Smith, {Joseph A.} and Scardino, {Peter T.} and Smith, {Robert B.} and Khanna, {Om P.} and Paulson, {David F.}",

year = "1991",

doi = "10.1089/end.1991.5.251",

language = "English",

volume = "5",

pages = "251--254",

journal = "Journal of Endourology",

issn = "0892-7790",

publisher = "Mary Ann Liebert Inc.",

number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Ultrasound Determination of Prostate Volume

T2 - Comparison of Transrectal (Ellipsoid v Planimetry) and Suprapubic Methods

AU - Stone, Nelson N.

AU - Ray, Paul S.

AU - Smith, Joseph A.

AU - Scardino, Peter T.

AU - Smith, Robert B.

AU - Khanna, Om P.

AU - Paulson, David F.

PY - 1991

Y1 - 1991

N2 - In a multicenter randomized trial of treatment for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), three methods for determining prostate size were used. Data on sequential measurements of prostate volume in patients taking a placebo were used to determine the variability in the techniques. Suprapubic ultrasound scanning with measurements in three dimensions demonstrated a coefficient of variation of 30 %. Prostate volume determined by transrectal ultrasound and three measurements had in a variability of 12%. Step-section planimetry offered the lowest variability, 5%, and should be the method of choice in determining prostate size in clinical studies of BPH.

AB - In a multicenter randomized trial of treatment for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), three methods for determining prostate size were used. Data on sequential measurements of prostate volume in patients taking a placebo were used to determine the variability in the techniques. Suprapubic ultrasound scanning with measurements in three dimensions demonstrated a coefficient of variation of 30 %. Prostate volume determined by transrectal ultrasound and three measurements had in a variability of 12%. Step-section planimetry offered the lowest variability, 5%, and should be the method of choice in determining prostate size in clinical studies of BPH.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85012490465&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1089/end.1991.5.251

DO - 10.1089/end.1991.5.251

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85012490465

SN - 0892-7790

VL - 5

SP - 251

EP - 254

JO - Journal of Endourology

JF - Journal of Endourology

IS - 3

ER -

Ultrasound Determination of Prostate Volume: Comparison of Transrectal (Ellipsoid v Planimetry) and Suprapubic Methods

Abstract

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this