INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Much variability exists in outcome measures used to report success of SUI surgery. We set out to evaluate outcome measures and definitions of cure in SUI surgery studies. METHODS: Outcome measures, success rates, and definition of cure were analyzed from published series and compared to recommendations by leading authorities. RESULTS: Ninety-one publications were analyzed. Thirty (33%) utilized solely subjective measures, four (4%) utilized only objective measures, and 57 (63%) included both. Sixty-one (67%) used symptom questionnaires, 56 (60%) QOL questionnaires, and six (7%) visual analog scale. Twelve (13%) used voiding diaries and 52 (56%) used self-reporting as an outcome measure. Objective measures: 52 (57%) cough stress test, 37 (41%) urodynamic evaluation, 28 (31%) pad testing and a combination in 33 (36%). Few studies adhered to one set of outcome recommendations. CONCLUSION: Outcome measures used to evaluate success of anti-incontinence procedures lack consensus and comparability.
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Much variability exists in outcome measures used to report success of SUI surgery. We set out to evaluate outcome measures and definitions of cure in SUI surgery studies. METHODS: Outcome measures, success rates, and definition of cure were analyzed from published series and compared to recommendations by leading authorities. RESULTS: Ninety-one publications were analyzed. Thirty (33%) utilized solely subjective measures, four (4%) utilized only objective measures, and 57 (63%) included both. Sixty-one (67%) used symptom questionnaires, 56 (60%) QOL questionnaires, and six (7%) visual analog scale. Twelve (13%) used voiding diaries and 52 (56%) used self-reporting as an outcome measure. Objective measures: 52 (57%) cough stress test, 37 (41%) urodynamic evaluation, 28 (31%) pad testing and a combination in 33 (36%). Few studies adhered to one set of outcome recommendations. CONCLUSION: Outcome measures used to evaluate success of anti-incontinence procedures lack consensus and comparability.
Authors: G E Leach; R R Dmochowski; R A Appell; J G Blaivas; H R Hadley; K M Luber; J L Mostwin; P D O'Donnell; C G Roehrborn Journal: J Urol Date: 1997-09 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: D F Stroup; J A Berlin; S C Morton; I Olkin; G D Williamson; D Rennie; D Moher; B J Becker; T A Sipe; S B Thacker Journal: JAMA Date: 2000-04-19 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: A M Weber; P Abrams; L Brubaker; G Cundiff; G Davis; R R Dmochowski; J Fischer; T Hull; I Nygaard; A C Weidner Journal: Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct Date: 2001
Authors: G Ghoniem; E Stanford; K Kenton; C Achtari; R Goldberg; T Mascarenhas; M Parekh; K Tamussino; S Tosson; G Lose; E Petri Journal: Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct Date: 2007-11-17
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