PURPOSE: No standard case definition exists for interstitial cystitis/painful bladder syndrome for patient screening or epidemiological studies. As part of the RAND Interstitial Cystitis Epidemiology study, we developed a case definition for interstitial cystitis/painful bladder syndrome with known sensitivity and specificity. We compared this definition with others used in interstitial cystitis/painful bladder syndrome epidemiological studies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed the literature and performed a structured, expert panel process to arrive at an interstitial cystitis/painful bladder syndrome case definition. We developed a questionnaire to assess interstitial cystitis/painful bladder syndrome symptoms using this case definition and others used in the literature. We administered the questionnaire to 599 women with interstitial cystitis/painful bladder syndrome, overactive bladder, endometriosis or vulvodynia. The sensitivity and specificity of each definition was calculated using physician assigned diagnoses as the reference standard. RESULTS: No single epidemiological definition had high sensitivity and high specificity. Thus, 2 definitions were developed. One had high sensitivity (81%) and low specificity (54%), and the other had the converse (48% sensitivity and 83% specificity). These values were comparable or superior to those of other epidemiological definitions used in interstitial cystitis/painful bladder syndrome prevalence studies. CONCLUSIONS: No single case definition of interstitial cystitis/painful bladder syndrome provides high sensitivity and high specificity to identify the condition. For prevalence studies of interstitial cystitis/painful bladder syndrome the best approach may be to use 2 definitions that would yield a prevalence range. The RAND Interstitial Cystitis Epidemiology interstitial cystitis/painful bladder syndrome case definitions, developed through structured consensus and validation, can be used for this purpose. 2010 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
PURPOSE: No standard case definition exists for interstitial cystitis/painful bladder syndrome for patient screening or epidemiological studies. As part of the RAND Interstitial Cystitis Epidemiology study, we developed a case definition for interstitial cystitis/painful bladder syndrome with known sensitivity and specificity. We compared this definition with others used in interstitial cystitis/painful bladder syndrome epidemiological studies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed the literature and performed a structured, expert panel process to arrive at an interstitial cystitis/painful bladder syndrome case definition. We developed a questionnaire to assess interstitial cystitis/painful bladder syndrome symptoms using this case definition and others used in the literature. We administered the questionnaire to 599 women with interstitial cystitis/painful bladder syndrome, overactive bladder, endometriosis or vulvodynia. The sensitivity and specificity of each definition was calculated using physician assigned diagnoses as the reference standard. RESULTS: No single epidemiological definition had high sensitivity and high specificity. Thus, 2 definitions were developed. One had high sensitivity (81%) and low specificity (54%), and the other had the converse (48% sensitivity and 83% specificity). These values were comparable or superior to those of other epidemiological definitions used in interstitial cystitis/painful bladder syndrome prevalence studies. CONCLUSIONS: No single case definition of interstitial cystitis/painful bladder syndrome provides high sensitivity and high specificity to identify the condition. For prevalence studies of interstitial cystitis/painful bladder syndrome the best approach may be to use 2 definitions that would yield a prevalence range. The RAND Interstitial Cystitis Epidemiology interstitial cystitis/painful bladder syndrome case definitions, developed through structured consensus and validation, can be used for this purpose. 2010 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Authors: H Hemingway; A M Crook; G Feder; S Banerjee; J R Dawson; P Magee; S Philpott; J Sanders; A Wood; A D Timmis Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2001-03-01 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Paul Abrams; Linda Cardozo; Magnus Fall; Derek Griffiths; Peter Rosier; Ulf Ulmsten; Philip van Kerrebroeck; Arne Victor; Alan Wein Journal: Neurourol Urodyn Date: 2002 Impact factor: 2.696
Authors: W F Stewart; J B Van Rooyen; G W Cundiff; P Abrams; A R Herzog; R Corey; T L Hunt; A J Wein Journal: World J Urol Date: 2002-11-15 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Anne Nicollier-Fahrni; John-Paul Vader; Florian Froehlich; Jean-Jacques Gonvers; Bernard Burnand Journal: Int J Qual Health Care Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 2.038
Authors: Laura M Bogart; Marika J Suttorp; Marc N Elliott; J Quentin Clemens; Sandra H Berry Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2011-12-07 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Casey G Kowalik; Adam Daily; Sophia D Goodridge; Siobhan M Hartigan; Melissa R Kaufman; Jay H Fowke; Roger R Dmochowski; William S Reynolds Journal: Neurourol Urodyn Date: 2020-04-23 Impact factor: 2.696
Authors: Adelle Dagher; Adam Curatolo; Monisha Sachdev; Alisa J Stephens; Chris Mullins; J Richard Landis; Adrie van Bokhoven; Andrew El-Hayek; John W Froehlich; Andrew C Briscoe; Roopali Roy; Jiang Yang; Michel A Pontari; David Zurakowski; Richard S Lee; Marsha A Moses Journal: BJU Int Date: 2017-04-11 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Sandra H Berry; Marc N Elliott; Marika Suttorp; Laura M Bogart; Michael A Stoto; Paul Eggers; Leroy Nyberg; J Quentin Clemens Journal: J Urol Date: 2011-06-16 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: J Quentin Clemens; Chris Mullins; A Lenore Ackerman; Tamara Bavendam; Adrie van Bokhoven; Benjamin M Ellingson; Steven E Harte; Jason J Kutch; H Henry Lai; Katherine T Martucci; Robert Moldwin; Bruce D Naliboff; Michel A Pontari; Siobhan Sutcliffe; J Richard Landis Journal: Nat Rev Urol Date: 2019-03 Impact factor: 14.432