Indian Journal of Urology Users online:360  
Home Current Issue Ahead of print Editorial Board Archives Symposia Guidelines Subscriptions Login 
Print this page  Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size

Year : 2010  |  Volume : 26  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 461-462

Authors' reply

1 Department of Urology, LTMGH and LTMMC, Sion, Mumbai, India
2 Department of Urology, KEM Hospital, Parel, Mumbai - 400 012, India

Date of Web Publication1-Oct-2010

Correspondence Address:
Vikash Kumar Singh
Department of Urology, KEM Hospital, Parel, Mumbai - 400 012
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

PMID: 21116378

Rights and PermissionsRights and Permissions


How to cite this article:
Singh VK, Dhabalia JV, Nelivigi GG, Punia MS, Suryavanshi M. Authors' reply. Indian J Urol 2010;26:461-2

How to cite this URL:
Singh VK, Dhabalia JV, Nelivigi GG, Punia MS, Suryavanshi M. Authors' reply. Indian J Urol [serial online] 2010 [cited 2021 Dec 9];26:461-2. Available from:

Dear Editor,

I appreciate Dr. Arvind P. Ganpule for his thoughtful comments [1] on our paper, [2] but we will like to clarify the queries raised. Firstly, this study has been conducted in Mumbai, a cosmopolitan city, catering population from all over India. So we have got an adequate number of healthy population from different parts of India (North, South, West and East). We agree that a multicenter study from different parts of India using subset of population will be more accurate. We have used corrected Qmax to prepare the nomogram and avoid fallacious peak in Qmax due to instrumental error.

We do not agree, as suggested, that baseline urine routine examination and USG is mandatory to identify healthy population. Healthy population is not required to be screened for asymptomatic infection and clinical implication of asymptomatic infection on uroflowrate is unknown. USG KUB was done in initial 100 patients; it was normal in the first 100 patients and it was discontinued in subsequent population as it was adding cost without much help in selection or exclusion of healthy population. There are many studies on nomogram preparation not using urine routine microscopy and USG KUB as screening for healthy population. [3],[4],[5]

This original study was presented in USICON 2009 and was awarded the Prof C K P Menon prize after being reviewed by USI chairpersons and judges. The error in total number of patients (mentioned 1011 in place of 1017) occurred because of typing mistake and it does not affect our nomogram preparation and statistical analysis. This minor mistake had happened after editing and typing in manuscript format that was not there in my presentation and sent to the USI before its acceptance as consideration for the Prof C K P Menon prize. So we still think this original study was worthy enough to be accepted for the prize and its acceptance for publication in an indexed journal (IJU).

As for the last query, the article published by Ganpule et al. [6] is not the study for drawing Uroflowmetry nomogram. We were unable to find this article after putting "Uroflowmetry nomogram" as search option in Pubmed, hence we missed this article. Secondly, this study is conducted in patients with LUTS and community patients of a specific age group (mean age 62.1 years, SD 9.5, range 40-82, male patients). The aim was to know the prevalence of LUTS in community and correlation between LUTS, age, prostate volume and quality of life, but in our study we have taken healthy population including all age groups and different gender and prepared the Uroflowmetry nomogram. Therefore, we totally disagree with the opinion drawn that earlier study concluded the same as we have come out with.

   References Top

1.Ganpule A. Age, gender and voided volume dependency of peak urinary flow rate and uroflowmetry nomogram in the Indian population. Indian J Urol 2010;26:457.  Back to cited text no. 1      
2.Kumar V, Dhabalia JV, Nelivigi GG, Punia MS, Suryavanshi M. Age, gender, and voided volume dependency of peak urinary flow rate and uroflowmetry nomogram in the Indian population. Indian J Urol 2009;25:461-6.  Back to cited text no. 2  [PUBMED]  Medknow Journal  
3.Pernkopf D, Plas E, Lang T, Daha K, Kubin K, Treu T, et al. Uroflow nomogram for male adolescents. J Urol 2005;174:1436-9.   Back to cited text no. 3  [PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]  
4.Kajbafzadeh AM, Yazdi CA, Rouhi O, Tajik P, Mohseni P. Uroflowmetry nomogram in Iranian children aged 7 to 14 years. BMC Urol 2005;5:3.   Back to cited text no. 4  [PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]  
5.Haylen BT, Ashby D, Sutherst JR, Frazer MI, West CR. Maximum and average urine flow rates in normal male and female populations- The Liverpool nomograms. Br J Urol 1989;64:30-8.   Back to cited text no. 5  [PUBMED]    
6.Ganpule AP, Desai MR, Desai MM, Wani KD, Bapat SD. Natural history of lower urinary tract symptoms: Preliminary report from a community-based Indian study. BJU Int 2004;94:332-4.  Back to cited text no. 6  [PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]  


Print this article  Email this article
Previous article Next article


   Next article
   Previous article 
   Table of Contents
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
    Article in PDF (208 KB)
    Citation Manager
    Access Statistics
    Reader Comments
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  


 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded52    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal