OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to develop a questionnaire for urinary incontinence diagnosis in women and to test its reliability and validity, with incontinence specialists' clinical evaluations as the gold standard. STUDY DESIGN: One hundred seventeen urogynecology outpatients with urinary incontinence symptoms completed the Questionnaire for Urinary Incontinence Diagnosis at enrollment and 1 week and 9 months later. Baseline clinical diagnoses were compared with Questionnaire for Urinary Incontinence Diagnosis diagnoses (criterion validity). Nine-month Questionnaire for Urinary Incontinence Diagnosis change scores were compared across treatment groups (responsiveness). RESULTS: Clinical diagnoses included stress (n = 15), urge (n = 26), and mixed urinary incontinence (n = 72). Internal consistency and test-retest reliability estimates were good. Sensitivity and specificity were 85% (95% CI, 75%, 91%) and 71% (95% CI, 51%, 87%), respectively, for stress urinary incontinence and 79% (95% CI, 69%, 86%) and 79% (95% CI, 54%, 94%), respectively, for urge urinary incontinence. The Questionnaire for Urinary Incontinence Diagnosis correctly diagnosed urinary incontinence type in 80% of subjects. Questionnaire for Urinary Incontinence Diagnosis Stress and Urge scores decreased significantly in treated subjects. CONCLUSION: The Questionnaire for Urinary Incontinence Diagnosis, a new 6-item questionnaire for female urinary incontinence type diagnosis, is reliable and able to diagnose stress urinary incontinence and urge urinary incontinence in a referral urogynecology patient population with accuracy.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to develop a questionnaire for urinary incontinence diagnosis in women and to test its reliability and validity, with incontinence specialists' clinical evaluations as the gold standard. STUDY DESIGN: One hundred seventeen urogynecology outpatients with urinary incontinence symptoms completed the Questionnaire for Urinary Incontinence Diagnosis at enrollment and 1 week and 9 months later. Baseline clinical diagnoses were compared with Questionnaire for Urinary Incontinence Diagnosis diagnoses (criterion validity). Nine-month Questionnaire for Urinary Incontinence Diagnosis change scores were compared across treatment groups (responsiveness). RESULTS: Clinical diagnoses included stress (n = 15), urge (n = 26), and mixed urinary incontinence (n = 72). Internal consistency and test-retest reliability estimates were good. Sensitivity and specificity were 85% (95% CI, 75%, 91%) and 71% (95% CI, 51%, 87%), respectively, for stress urinary incontinence and 79% (95% CI, 69%, 86%) and 79% (95% CI, 54%, 94%), respectively, for urge urinary incontinence. The Questionnaire for Urinary Incontinence Diagnosis correctly diagnosed urinary incontinence type in 80% of subjects. Questionnaire for Urinary Incontinence Diagnosis Stress and Urge scores decreased significantly in treated subjects. CONCLUSION: The Questionnaire for Urinary Incontinence Diagnosis, a new 6-item questionnaire for female urinary incontinence type diagnosis, is reliable and able to diagnose stress urinary incontinence and urge urinary incontinence in a referral urogynecology patient population with accuracy.
Authors: Alejandro D Treszezamsky; Deborah Karp; Madeline Dick-Biascoechea; Nazanin Ehsani; Christina Dancz; T Ignacio Montoya; Cedric K Olivera; Aimee L Smith; Rosa Cardenas; Tola Fashokun; Catherine S Bradley Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2012-09-14 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: L Elaine Waetjen; Katherine Leung; Sybil L Crawford; Mei-Hua Huang; Ellen B Gold; Gail A Greendale Journal: Menopause Date: 2013-04 Impact factor: 2.953
Authors: Anne M Suskind; Rodney L Dunn; Daniel M Morgan; John O L DeLancey; Karl T Rew; John T Wei Journal: Neurourol Urodyn Date: 2014-01-25 Impact factor: 2.696
Authors: Catherine S Bradley; David D Rahn; Ingrid E Nygaard; Matthew D Barber; Charles W Nager; Kimberly S Kenton; Nazema Y Siddiqui; Robert B Abel; Cathie Spino; Holly E Richter Journal: Neurourol Urodyn Date: 2010-06 Impact factor: 2.696
Authors: R G Rogers; L M Leeman; N Borders; C Qualls; A M Fullilove; D Teaf; R J Hall; E Bedrick; L L Albers Journal: BJOG Date: 2014-02-19 Impact factor: 6.531