One author suggested that changing one��s voiding position may yield in an effect that can approach the effects of standard pharmaceutical management. However, due to the heterogeneity of results in these studies, no conclusion can be drawn without performing a meta-analysis. In this article, we summarize the evidence of an easy lifestyle change in addition to the standard therapy: changing ones voiding position in order to achieve a beneficial urodynamic profile. This meta-analysis aims to analyze the influence of body position on urodynamic parameters in both healthy males and male patients with LUTS. A data extraction form was designed which was adapted after piloting. Data were extracted independently; inconsistencies in the data were discussed and resolved. We extracted data on: study design, year of publication, sample size, patient characteristics, studied urodynamic parameters, and urination positions. Relevant CP-335963 missing information was requested from the study authors. We assessed the studies on their risk of bias concerning variables known to be of influence in urodynamic research. Studies were considered to harbor a high risk of bias in the case of inadequate exposure determination, inadequate assessment of outcomes and inadequate standardization of voiding conditions. For adequate exposure determination, studies should have assessed the severity of LUTS by a standardized questionnaire. As all included studies used a one-group study design, differences in baseline Phenamil methanesulfonate salt characteristics were not an issue. For adequate outcome assessment, total bladder capacity should have been measured and the technique used for the assessment of urodynamic parameters should have been described. To ensure a valid comparison between standing and voiding position, voiding conditions should have been standardized and the following variables should have been taken into account: the influences of the setting for the measurements, the circadian rhythm, the time since last ejaculation and defecation, changes in intra-abdominal pressure, and the accustomed voiding position on urodynamics. Risk of bias assessment is presented in table 2. Of the six LUTS studies, two defined the severity of LUTS by means of the IPSS and clinical examination, two by clinical examination only, one by IPSS only, whereas one study did not describe the severity at all.