We have made a comparative evaluation of PLUTSS, voiding diary and information received from other tools used in the diagnosis and follow-up of LUTS in children. Our main objective was to evaluate the correlation between PLUTS and other tools; and to see if PLUTSS could substitute voiding diary.A total of 40 patients (M:9,F:31) with a mean age of 6.9 years were evaluated for LUTS between December 2005 and September 2006. We performed; a detailed questionnaire for the socio-demographic features, urinalysis and culture, uroflowmetry, post-void residual urine (PVR), PLUTSS and 2 days voding diary in all. The patients with febrile infection have undergone further investigation for reflux. After a standard treatment including urotherapy and anticholinergics the evaluation above was repeated.Parameters on family structure, number of siblings, toilet education, pregnancy and infancy period, school success and personality had no relation with diagnosis and prognosis of LUTS. Voiding dysfunction was with UTI in 45%, VUR in 17.5%, incontinence in % 85 and constipation in 30% at presentation. Despite poor compatibility of PLUTS and voiding diary in general, there was a good correlation between them in defining the frequency of daytime incontinence, and moderate correlation for incontinence severity and number of daily voiding.PLUTS and voiding diary are incompatible and can not substitute each other as anticipated. PLUTSS was the only tool which could predict the therapy responses. Due to the poor consistency of PLUTSS and voiding diary and their particular distinct advantages, both should be used in the diagnosis and follow-up of voiding dysfunction.