AIMS: A urinary incontinence impairment rating must be a highly accurate, non-invasive exploration of the condition using International Classification of Functioning (ICF)-based assessment tools. The objective of this study was to identify the best evaluation test and to determine an impairment rating model of urinary incontinence. METHODS: In performing a cross-sectional study comparing successive urodynamic tests using both the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Urinary Incontinence-Short Form (ICIQ-UI-SF) and the 1-hr pad-weighing test in 120 patients, we performed statistical likelihood ratio analysis and used logistic regression to calculate the probability of urodynamic incontinence using the most significant independent predictors. Subsequently, we created a template that was based on the significant predictors and the probability of urodynamic incontinence. RESULTS: The mean ICIQ-UI-SF score was 13.5 ± 4.6, and the median pad test value was 8 g. The discrimination statistic (receiver operating characteristic) described how well the urodynamic observations matched the ICIQ-UI-SF scores (under curve area (UDA):0.689) and the pad test data (UDA: 0.693). Using logistic regression analysis, we demonstrated that the best independent predictors of urodynamic incontinence were the patient's age and the ICIQ-UI-SF score. The logistic regression model permitted us to construct an equation to determine the probability of urodynamic incontinence. Using these tools, we created a template to generate a probability index of urodynamic urinary incontinence. CONCLUSIONS: Using this probability index, relative to the patient and to the maximum impairment of the whole person (MIWP) relative to urinary incontinence, we were able to calculate a patient's permanent impairment.
AIMS: A urinary incontinence impairment rating must be a highly accurate, non-invasive exploration of the condition using International Classification of Functioning (ICF)-based assessment tools. The objective of this study was to identify the best evaluation test and to determine an impairment rating model of urinary incontinence. METHODS: In performing a cross-sectional study comparing successive urodynamic tests using both the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Urinary Incontinence-Short Form (ICIQ-UI-SF) and the 1-hr pad-weighing test in 120 patients, we performed statistical likelihood ratio analysis and used logistic regression to calculate the probability of urodynamic incontinence using the most significant independent predictors. Subsequently, we created a template that was based on the significant predictors and the probability of urodynamic incontinence. RESULTS: The mean ICIQ-UI-SF score was 13.5 ± 4.6, and the median pad test value was 8 g. The discrimination statistic (receiver operating characteristic) described how well the urodynamic observations matched the ICIQ-UI-SF scores (under curve area (UDA):0.689) and the pad test data (UDA: 0.693). Using logistic regression analysis, we demonstrated that the best independent predictors of urodynamic incontinence were the patient's age and the ICIQ-UI-SF score. The logistic regression model permitted us to construct an equation to determine the probability of urodynamic incontinence. Using these tools, we created a template to generate a probability index of urodynamic urinary incontinence. CONCLUSIONS: Using this probability index, relative to the patient and to the maximum impairment of the whole person (MIWP) relative to urinary incontinence, we were able to calculate a patient's permanent impairment.