BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Urodynamic studies (UDS) are routinely obtained prior to surgery for stress urinary incontinence (SUI) despite a lack of evidence that UDS information has an actual impact on outcome. The primary aim of this non-inferiority randomized clinical trial is to determine whether women with symptomatic, uncomplicated SUI who undergo only a basic office evaluation (BOE) prior to SUI surgery (No UDS arm) have non-inferior treatment outcomes compared to women who have BOE and UDS (UDS arm). Secondary aims are: 1) to determine how often physicians use preoperative UDS results to alter clinical and surgical decision-making, 2) to compare the amount of improvement in incontinence outcomes, and 3) to determine the incremental cost and utility of performing UDS compared with not performing UDS. METHODS: After an initial basic office evaluation, women planning surgery for uncomplicated SUI who consent to study participation will be randomized to receive preoperative UDS or No UDS. Treatment will be planned and performed by the surgeon utilizing all the data available to them. We will compare results from the basic office evaluation (No UDS) with results from the basic office evaluation and preoperative UDS. RESULTS: The primary outcome will be measured at 12 months using responses to the Urogenital Distress Inventory and the Patient Global Index-Improvement. CONCLUSIONS: Randomized trials comparing the effects of different diagnostic alternatives on treatment outcomes pose study design challenges. A non-inferiority design is appropriate when comparing a less invasive and less expensive alternative with a standard of care approach.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Urodynamic studies (UDS) are routinely obtained prior to surgery for stress urinary incontinence (SUI) despite a lack of evidence that UDS information has an actual impact on outcome. The primary aim of this non-inferiority randomized clinical trial is to determine whether women with symptomatic, uncomplicated SUI who undergo only a basic office evaluation (BOE) prior to SUI surgery (No UDS arm) have non-inferior treatment outcomes compared to women who have BOE and UDS (UDS arm). Secondary aims are: 1) to determine how often physicians use preoperative UDS results to alter clinical and surgical decision-making, 2) to compare the amount of improvement in incontinence outcomes, and 3) to determine the incremental cost and utility of performing UDS compared with not performing UDS. METHODS: After an initial basic office evaluation, women planning surgery for uncomplicated SUI who consent to study participation will be randomized to receive preoperative UDS or No UDS. Treatment will be planned and performed by the surgeon utilizing all the data available to them. We will compare results from the basic office evaluation (No UDS) with results from the basic office evaluation and preoperative UDS. RESULTS: The primary outcome will be measured at 12 months using responses to the Urogenital Distress Inventory and the Patient Global Index-Improvement. CONCLUSIONS: Randomized trials comparing the effects of different diagnostic alternatives on treatment outcomes pose study design challenges. A non-inferiority design is appropriate when comparing a less invasive and less expensive alternative with a standard of care approach.
Authors: Werner Schäfer; Paul Abrams; Limin Liao; Anders Mattiasson; Francesco Pesce; Anders Spangberg; Arthur M Sterling; Norman R Zinner; Philip van Kerrebroeck Journal: Neurourol Urodyn Date: 2002 Impact factor: 2.696
Authors: Paul Abrams; Linda Cardozo; Magnus Fall; Derek Griffiths; Peter Rosier; Ulf Ulmsten; Philip Van Kerrebroeck; Arne Victor; Alan Wein Journal: Urology Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Charles W Nager; Michael E Albo; Mary P Fitzgerald; Susan M McDermott; Stephen Kraus; Holly E Richter; Philippe Zimmern Journal: Urology Date: 2007-01 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Leslee L Subak; Jeanette S Brown; Stephen R Kraus; Linda Brubaker; Feng Lin; Holly E Richter; Catherine S Bradley; Deborah Grady Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2006-04 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Gary E Lemack; Heather J Litman; Charles Nager; Linda Brubaker; Jerry Lowder; Peggy Norton; Larry Sirls; Keith Lloyd; John W Kusek Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2012-06-06 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Krystal J Thomas-White; Stephanie Kliethermes; Leslie Rickey; Emily S Lukacz; Holly E Richter; Pamela Moalli; Philippe Zimmern; Peggy Norton; John W Kusek; Alan J Wolfe; Linda Brubaker Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2016-08-04 Impact factor: 8.661
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: 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: L Brubaker; H J Litman; L Rickey; K Y Dyer; A D Markland; L Sirls; P Norton; E Casiano; M F R Paraiso; C Ghetti; D D Rahn; J W Kusek Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2013-08-03 Impact factor: 2.894