AIMS: The Questionnaire for Urinary Incontinence Diagnosis (QUID), a 6-item urinary incontinence (UI) symptom questionnaire, was developed and validated to distinguish stress and urge UI. This study's objective was to evaluate QUID validity and responsiveness when used as a clinical trial outcome measure. METHODS:Participants enrolled in a multi-center trial of non-surgical therapy (continence pessary, pelvic floor muscle training or combined) for stress-predominant UI and completed baseline and 3-month diaries, theUrinary Distress Inventory (UDI) and QUID. Data from all treatment groups were pooled. QUID internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) and convergent/discriminant validity (Pearson correlations) were evaluated. Responsiveness to change was assessed with 3-month score outcomes and distribution-based measurements. RESULTS:Four hundred forty-four women (mean age 50) were enrolled with stress (N = 200) and mixed (N = 244) UI; 344 had 3-month data. Baseline QUID Stress and Urge scores (both scaled 0-15, larger values indicating worse UI) were 8.4 +/- 3.2 and 4.5 +/- 3.3, respectively. Internal consistency of QUID Total, Stress, and Urge scores was 0.75, 0.64 and 0.87, respectively. QUID Stress scores correlated moderately with UDI-Stress scores (r = 0.68, P < 0.0001) and diary stress UI episodes (r = 0.41, P < 0.0001). QUID Urge scores correlated moderately with UDI-Irritative scores (r = 0.68, P < 0.0001) and diary urge UI episodes (r = 0.45, P < 0.0001). Three-month QUID Stress and Urge scores improved (4.1 +/- 3.4 and 2.2 +/- 2.7, both P < 0.0001). QUID Stress score effect size (1.3) and standardized response mean (1.2) suggested a large change after therapy. CONCLUSION: The QUID has acceptable psychometric characteristics and may be used as a UI outcome measure in clinical trials. (c) 2010 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
RCT Entities:
AIMS: The Questionnaire for Urinary Incontinence Diagnosis (QUID), a 6-item urinary incontinence (UI) symptom questionnaire, was developed and validated to distinguish stress and urge UI. This study's objective was to evaluate QUID validity and responsiveness when used as a clinical trial outcome measure. METHODS:Participants enrolled in a multi-center trial of non-surgical therapy (continence pessary, pelvic floor muscle training or combined) for stress-predominant UI and completed baseline and 3-month diaries, the Urinary Distress Inventory (UDI) and QUID. Data from all treatment groups were pooled. QUID internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) and convergent/discriminant validity (Pearson correlations) were evaluated. Responsiveness to change was assessed with 3-month score outcomes and distribution-based measurements. RESULTS: Four hundred forty-four women (mean age 50) were enrolled with stress (N = 200) and mixed (N = 244) UI; 344 had 3-month data. Baseline QUID Stress and Urge scores (both scaled 0-15, larger values indicating worse UI) were 8.4 +/- 3.2 and 4.5 +/- 3.3, respectively. Internal consistency of QUID Total, Stress, and Urge scores was 0.75, 0.64 and 0.87, respectively. QUID Stress scores correlated moderately with UDI-Stress scores (r = 0.68, P < 0.0001) and diary stress UI episodes (r = 0.41, P < 0.0001). QUID Urge scores correlated moderately with UDI-Irritative scores (r = 0.68, P < 0.0001) and diary urge UI episodes (r = 0.45, P < 0.0001). Three-month QUID Stress and Urge scores improved (4.1 +/- 3.4 and 2.2 +/- 2.7, both P < 0.0001). QUID Stress score effect size (1.3) and standardized response mean (1.2) suggested a large change after therapy. CONCLUSION: The QUID has acceptable psychometric characteristics and may be used as a UI outcome measure in clinical trials. (c) 2010 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
Authors: R C Bump; A Mattiasson; K Bø; L P Brubaker; J O DeLancey; P Klarskov; B L Shull; A R Smith Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 1996-07 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Kathleen W Wyrwich; Monika Bullinger; Neil Aaronson; Ron D Hays; Donald L Patrick; Tara Symonds Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Catherine S Bradley; Eric S Rovner; Mark A Morgan; Michelle Berlin; Joseph M Novi; Judy A Shea; Lily A Arya Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2005-01 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Holly E Richter; Kathryn L Burgio; Patricia S Goode; Diane Borello-France; Catherine S Bradley; Linda Brubaker; Victoria L Handa; Paul M Fine; Anthony G Visco; Halina M Zyczynski; John T Wei; Anne M Weber Journal: Clin Trials Date: 2007 Impact factor: 2.486
Authors: J L Martin; K S Williams; K R Abrams; D A Turner; A J Sutton; C Chapple; R P Assassa; C Shaw; F Cheater Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Marcella G Willis-Gray; Juan S Sandoval; Jean Maynor; Hayden B Bosworth; Nazema Y Siddiqui Journal: Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg Date: 2015 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 2.091
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: Nazema Y Siddiqui; Natalie Ammarell; Jennifer M Wu; Juan S Sandoval; Hayden B Bosworth Journal: Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg Date: 2016 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 2.091
Authors: Vatché A Minassian; Xiaowei S Yan; Haiyan Sun; Raissa O Platte; Walter F Stewart Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2015-09-19 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Scott A Farrell; Alfred Bent; Baharak Amir-Khalkhali; David Rittenberg; Art Zilbert; Karen D Farrell; Colleen O'Connell; Cora Fanning Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2012-09-01 Impact factor: 2.894