INTRODUCTION: In our country there are a few available instruments to diagnose urinary incontinence (UI) from the patient's perspective. The King's Health Questionnaire (KHQ) and the "International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Urinary Incontinence Short Form" (ICIQ-UI SF) are the most widespread among that. The present study aimed to compare the clinical utility between KHQ and ICIQ-UI SF with regard to the urodynamic test. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Cross-sectional study performed in 116 women who completed the ICIQ-UI SF, the KHQ and the urodynamic test and were diagnosed according to each test. Sensibility and specificity values of symptom dimension of the ICIQ-UI SF and the KHQ were analyzed with regard to the urodynamic test. In addition, correlation scores between the both compared measures were calculated. RESULTS: Mean age (SD) of women was 54 years (SD = 13.99). KHQ and ICIQ-UI SF mean scores were 39.93 (22.11) and 13.76 (4.11), respectively. Correlation between both measures was moderated (r = 0.6; p < 0.001). Percentages of pts with symptoms suggesting Stress UI (SUI), Urge UI (UUI) and Mixed UI (MUI) according to each instrument were: 33.7, 17.3 & 49 (KHQ); 40.4, 15.4 & 44.2 (ICIQ-UI SF). Patients' distribution according to urodynamic test was: SUI 41.3%, UUI 20.2%, MUI 26.9% and 11.5% with other diagnosis. Sensibility and specificity values of both questionnaires were very similar, but feasibility was worse for the KHQ (7.76% of pts did not complete the questionnaire) than for the ICIQ-UI SF (2.59% did not complete the questionnaire). CONCLUSIONS: Because of its better feasibility, clinical use of ICIQ-UI SF is recommended against KHQ for UI evaluation.
INTRODUCTION: In our country there are a few available instruments to diagnose urinary incontinence (UI) from the patient's perspective. The King's Health Questionnaire (KHQ) and the "International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Urinary Incontinence Short Form" (ICIQ-UI SF) are the most widespread among that. The present study aimed to compare the clinical utility between KHQ and ICIQ-UI SF with regard to the urodynamic test. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Cross-sectional study performed in 116 women who completed the ICIQ-UI SF, the KHQ and the urodynamic test and were diagnosed according to each test. Sensibility and specificity values of symptom dimension of the ICIQ-UI SF and the KHQ were analyzed with regard to the urodynamic test. In addition, correlation scores between the both compared measures were calculated. RESULTS: Mean age (SD) of women was 54 years (SD = 13.99). KHQ and ICIQ-UI SF mean scores were 39.93 (22.11) and 13.76 (4.11), respectively. Correlation between both measures was moderated (r = 0.6; p < 0.001). Percentages of pts with symptoms suggesting Stress UI (SUI), Urge UI (UUI) and Mixed UI (MUI) according to each instrument were: 33.7, 17.3 & 49 (KHQ); 40.4, 15.4 & 44.2 (ICIQ-UI SF). Patients' distribution according to urodynamic test was: SUI 41.3%, UUI 20.2%, MUI 26.9% and 11.5% with other diagnosis. Sensibility and specificity values of both questionnaires were very similar, but feasibility was worse for the KHQ (7.76% of pts did not complete the questionnaire) than for the ICIQ-UI SF (2.59% did not complete the questionnaire). CONCLUSIONS: Because of its better feasibility, clinical use of ICIQ-UI SF is recommended against KHQ for UI evaluation.