OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the potential impact of the UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) recommendation that preoperative urodynamics are not necessary for women with 'pure symptoms of stress urinary incontinence' (SUI), by using data from a population of women referred with lower urinary tract symptoms. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a retrospective study of 6276 women with UI, from an electronic database at a tertiary referral centre, information was collected and entered into a urodynamics computer database at the time of history taking and before conducting the tests. The database was used to identify women aged 18-80 years who had multichannel cystometry for UI over a 17-year period (1 January 1990 to 31 December 2006). To apply the NICE criterion of a 'clearly defined clinical diagnosis of pure SUI', strict selection criteria were used to identify patients with pure SUI. The reliability of the patients' history in predicting 'pure' urodynamic SUI in patients with 'pure' SUI was investigated. The correspondence of the symptomatic diagnosis of pure SUI with the urodynamic findings was assessed, and sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were calculated using contingency tables. RESULTS: Only 324 (5.2%) women had pure SUI; moreover, a quarter of those with pure SUI symptoms ultimately had urodynamic diagnoses other than urodynamic SUI, that could affect the outcome of continence surgery. CONCLUSION: These findings indicate that only a small group of women fulfil the NICE criteria of pure SUI. These strict criteria do not ensure that all women with potentially important urodynamic findings are evaluated accordingly. Therefore, we suggest that this NICE recommendation was unwise and, furthermore, was not based on properly acquired expert opinion.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the potential impact of the UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) recommendation that preoperative urodynamics are not necessary for women with 'pure symptoms of stress urinary incontinence' (SUI), by using data from a population of women referred with lower urinary tract symptoms. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a retrospective study of 6276 women with UI, from an electronic database at a tertiary referral centre, information was collected and entered into a urodynamics computer database at the time of history taking and before conducting the tests. The database was used to identify women aged 18-80 years who had multichannel cystometry for UI over a 17-year period (1 January 1990 to 31 December 2006). To apply the NICE criterion of a 'clearly defined clinical diagnosis of pure SUI', strict selection criteria were used to identify patients with pure SUI. The reliability of the patients' history in predicting 'pure' urodynamic SUI in patients with 'pure' SUI was investigated. The correspondence of the symptomatic diagnosis of pure SUI with the urodynamic findings was assessed, and sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were calculated using contingency tables. RESULTS: Only 324 (5.2%) women had pure SUI; moreover, a quarter of those with pure SUI symptoms ultimately had urodynamic diagnoses other than urodynamic SUI, that could affect the outcome of continence surgery. CONCLUSION: These findings indicate that only a small group of women fulfil the NICE criteria of pure SUI. These strict criteria do not ensure that all women with potentially important urodynamic findings are evaluated accordingly. Therefore, we suggest that this NICE recommendation was unwise and, furthermore, was not based on properly acquired expert opinion.
Authors: Charles W Nager; Linda Brubaker; Heather J Litman; Halina M Zyczynski; R Edward Varner; Cindy Amundsen; Larry T Sirls; Peggy A Norton; Amy M Arisco; Toby C Chai; Philippe Zimmern; Matthew D Barber; Kimberly J Dandreo; Shawn A Menefee; Kimberly Kenton; Jerry Lowder; Holly E Richter; Salil Khandwala; Ingrid Nygaard; Stephen R Kraus; Harry W Johnson; Gary E Lemack; Marina Mihova; Michael E Albo; Elizabeth Mueller; Gary Sutkin; Tracey S Wilson; Yvonne Hsu; Thomas A Rozanski; Leslie M Rickey; David Rahn; Sharon Tennstedt; John W Kusek; E Ann Gormley Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-05-02 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Charles W Nager; Linda Brubaker; Firouz Daneshgari; Heather J Litman; Kimberly J Dandreo; Larry Sirls; Gary E Lemack; Holly E Richter; Wendy Leng; Peggy Norton; Stephen R Kraus; Toby C Chai; Debuene Chang; Cindy L Amundsen; Anne M Stoddard; Sharon L Tennstedt Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2009-07-25 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Larry T Sirls; Holly E Richter; Heather J Litman; Kimberly Kenton; Gary E Lemack; Emily S Lukacz; Stephen R Kraus; Howard B Goldman; Alison Weidner; Leslie Rickey; Peggy Norton; Halina M Zyczynski; John W Kusek Journal: J Urol Date: 2012-10-08 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Paul Hilton; Natalie Armstrong; Catherine Brennand; Denise Howel; Jing Shen; Andrew Bryant; Douglas G Tincello; Malcolm G Lucas; Brian S Buckley; Christopher R Chapple; Tara Homer; Luke Vale; Elaine McColl Journal: Trials Date: 2015-09-08 Impact factor: 2.279