AIMS: Presently, there is no simple, universally accepted instrument for the initial diagnosis of urinary incontinence (UI), which is why physicians find it so difficult to integrate the diagnosis into their daily clinical practice. The objective of this study is to analyze the true value of the ICIQ-UI SF questionnaire (ICIQ), the stress test, and the combination of both for the diagnosis as to the type of UI. METHODS: Cross-sectional study performed in 116 women consulting for UI symptoms in two specialized health care centers. The subjects completed the ICIQ and underwent a stress test and urodynamic testing which was used for the reference diagnosis. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and the statistical "likelihood ratio (LR)" were assessed. RESULTS: According to the ICIQ, 45 women (38.8%) suffered from Stress UI (SUI); 19 (16.4%), Urgency UI (UUI), and 49 (42.2%), Mixed UI (MUI). According to the stress test, 75 (64.7%) presented SUI. According to the combination of both tests, the diagnosis was SUI in 35 (30.2%), UUI in 17 (14.7%), and MUI in 37 (31.9%). Regarding urodynamic testing, observations were as follows: USI in 45 subjects (38.8%), detrusor overactivity (DO) in 25 (21.6%), and combination of both (MUI) in 30 (25.9%). The combination of ICIQ-UI SF plus stress test showed good specificity and negative predictive value, and the best LR coefficients obtained were: 3.11 (USI); 6.64 (UUI); 2.64 (MUI), and 3.77 ("all" SUI). CONCLUSIONS: The combined use of the ICIQ plus stress test will aid in characterizing the type of UI at a basic health care level, favoring the prescription of the most appropriate treatment for each case. (c) 2007 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
AIMS: Presently, there is no simple, universally accepted instrument for the initial diagnosis of urinary incontinence (UI), which is why physicians find it so difficult to integrate the diagnosis into their daily clinical practice. The objective of this study is to analyze the true value of the ICIQ-UI SF questionnaire (ICIQ), the stress test, and the combination of both for the diagnosis as to the type of UI. METHODS: Cross-sectional study performed in 116 women consulting for UI symptoms in two specialized health care centers. The subjects completed the ICIQ and underwent a stress test and urodynamic testing which was used for the reference diagnosis. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and the statistical "likelihood ratio (LR)" were assessed. RESULTS: According to the ICIQ, 45 women (38.8%) suffered from Stress UI (SUI); 19 (16.4%), Urgency UI (UUI), and 49 (42.2%), Mixed UI (MUI). According to the stress test, 75 (64.7%) presented SUI. According to the combination of both tests, the diagnosis was SUI in 35 (30.2%), UUI in 17 (14.7%), and MUI in 37 (31.9%). Regarding urodynamic testing, observations were as follows: USI in 45 subjects (38.8%), detrusor overactivity (DO) in 25 (21.6%), and combination of both (MUI) in 30 (25.9%). The combination of ICIQ-UI SF plus stress test showed good specificity and negative predictive value, and the best LR coefficients obtained were: 3.11 (USI); 6.64 (UUI); 2.64 (MUI), and 3.77 ("all" SUI). CONCLUSIONS: The combined use of the ICIQ plus stress test will aid in characterizing the type of UI at a basic health care level, favoring the prescription of the most appropriate treatment for each case. (c) 2007 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
Authors: Louise Schreiber Pedersen; Gunnar Lose; Mette Terp Høybye; Martina Jürgensen; Annika Waldmann; Martin Rudnicki Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2017-08-05 Impact factor: 2.894
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: Heidi F A Moossdorff-Steinhauser; Bary C M Berghmans; Marc E A Spaanderman; Esther M J Bols Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2021-01-23 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Edmond P H Choi; Weng-Yee Chin; Cindy L K Lam; Eric Y F Wan; Anca K C Chan; Karina H Y Chan Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-06-15 Impact factor: 3.240