OBJECTIVE: To estimate the prevalence of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) in the community, and study the influence of BPH definition, age and response bias on prevalence rates. Subjects and methods A community-based longitudinal study of 3924 men aged 50-75 years was conducted in a Dutch municipality (Krimpen) near Rotterdam. Data from those responding were collected using self-administered questionnaires, and during visits to the health centre and outpatient clinic of the urology department. The questionnaires included symptom scores on general well being (Inventory of Subjective Health, ISH) and lower urinary tract symptoms (International Prostate Symptom Score, IPSS). A short version of the questionnaire (including the IPSS and ISH) was sent to a random sample of those not responding. All subjects participating fully underwent a physical examination, uroflowmetry, transrectal ultrasonometry of the prostate and had their prostate specific antigen level measured. Age-specific prevalence rates of BPH were estimated using different definitions, based on one or more of symptom severity, prostate volume and maximum flow rate. The influence of response bias was estimated using the questionnaires. RESULTS: The response rate was 50% (full participants). Of those not responding, 55% completed a short version of the questionnaire (partial participants). Compared with full participants, partial participants had a lower IPSS and slightly lower ISH. The prevalence rates of clinical BPH in the study population was 9-20% (95% confidence interval, 8-11% to 22-27%) depending on the definition used. After adjusting for nonresponse bias, the age-group specific prevalences for 5-year age strata were 1.1-1.8 times lower for all BPH definitions used. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence rates of clinical BPH depend largely on the definition used and increase strongly with age. The effect of age is stronger when more variables are included in the definition. Adjustment for response bias results in substantially lower prevalence rates.
OBJECTIVE: To estimate the prevalence of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) in the community, and study the influence of BPH definition, age and response bias on prevalence rates. Subjects and methods A community-based longitudinal study of 3924 men aged 50-75 years was conducted in a Dutch municipality (Krimpen) near Rotterdam. Data from those responding were collected using self-administered questionnaires, and during visits to the health centre and outpatient clinic of the urology department. The questionnaires included symptom scores on general well being (Inventory of Subjective Health, ISH) and lower urinary tract symptoms (International Prostate Symptom Score, IPSS). A short version of the questionnaire (including the IPSS and ISH) was sent to a random sample of those not responding. All subjects participating fully underwent a physical examination, uroflowmetry, transrectal ultrasonometry of the prostate and had their prostate specific antigen level measured. Age-specific prevalence rates of BPH were estimated using different definitions, based on one or more of symptom severity, prostate volume and maximum flow rate. The influence of response bias was estimated using the questionnaires. RESULTS: The response rate was 50% (full participants). Of those not responding, 55% completed a short version of the questionnaire (partial participants). Compared with full participants, partial participants had a lower IPSS and slightly lower ISH. The prevalence rates of clinical BPH in the study population was 9-20% (95% confidence interval, 8-11% to 22-27%) depending on the definition used. After adjusting for nonresponse bias, the age-group specific prevalences for 5-year age strata were 1.1-1.8 times lower for all BPH definitions used. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence rates of clinical BPH depend largely on the definition used and increase strongly with age. The effect of age is stronger when more variables are included in the definition. Adjustment for response bias results in substantially lower prevalence rates.
Authors: Inge I Bouwman; Marco H Blanker; Boris W V Schouten; Arthur M Bohnen; Rien J M Nijman; Wouter K van der Heide; J L H Ruud Bosch Journal: World J Urol Date: 2014-09-25 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Benjamin C Trumble; Jonathan Stieglitz; Daniel Eid Rodriguez; Edhitt Cortez Linares; Hillard S Kaplan; Michael D Gurven Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2015-04-28 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Esther T Kok; Arthur M Bohnen; J L H Ruud Bosch; Siep Thomas; Frans P M J Groeneveld Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2006-07-07 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Kate Tilling; Hans Garmo; Chris Metcalfe; Lars Holmberg; Freddie C Hamdy; David E Neal; Jan Adolfsson; Richard M Martin; Michael Davis; Katja Fall; J Athene Lane; Hans-Olaf Adami; Anna Bill-Axelson; Jan-Eric Johansson; Jenny L Donovan Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2009-03-13 Impact factor: 20.096