Literature DB >> 26386565

Clinical validation of the Bladder Health Survey for urinary incontinence in a population sample of women.

Vatché A Minassian1, Xiaowei S Yan2, Haiyan Sun2, Raissa O Platte3, Walter F Stewart4.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Our aim was to clinically validate the Bladder Health Survey (BHS) for detecting urinary incontinence (UI) in population-based surveys.
METHODS: A random sample of women ≥40 years was recruited from primary care practices. We assessed the BHS content validity with an expert advisory board. Test-retest reliability of UI questions was measured. BHS UI definitions included noncases, active (more than three symptoms in the prior 6 months), inactive (past but no current symptoms), and incident (new onset over the past 2 years) cases. To assess criterion validity, we compared BHS diagnosis to an expert clinical diagnosis using structured history, pelvic exam, voiding diary, and urodynamics (if needed). Construct validity was assessed comparing the BHS UI score and case status to Sandvik's score.
RESULTS: Among 322 patients, the BHS identified 17 % as noncases, 70 % as active, 10 % as inactive, and 3 % as incident cases. Using the clinical diagnosis as the gold standard, the percent of true-positive UI cases was 98 % (active), 84 % (inactive), and 80 % (incident). A total of 75 % of BHS noncases were true negatives. The receiver operating characteristic c-statistic was 0.86. Sensitivity and specificity of the BHS were 91 % and 84 %, respectively. The Sandvik score for active cases (median = 4) was significantly greater than it was for inactive (median = 1), incident (median = 1), and noncases (median = 0) (p < 0.001). The BHS UI score was significantly correlated with the Sandvik severity score (r = 0.68, p < 0.01).
CONCLUSION: The BHS is highly reliable, with robust content and construct validity for detecting UI for use in population samples.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Mixed urinary incontinence; Stress; Survey; Urgency; Urinary incontinence; Validity

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26386565     DOI: 10.1007/s00192-015-2849-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int Urogynecol J        ISSN: 0937-3462            Impact factor:   2.894


  26 in total

Review 1.  Prevalence and incidence of urinary incontinence in community-dwelling populations.

Authors:  A R Herzog; N H Fultz
Journal:  J Am Geriatr Soc       Date:  1990-03       Impact factor: 5.562

2.  The prevalence of urinary incontinence.

Authors:  I Milsom
Journal:  Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand       Date:  2000-12       Impact factor: 3.636

3.  The Bristol Female Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms questionnaire: development and psychometric testing.

Authors:  S Jackson; J Donovan; S Brookes; S Eckford; L Swithinbank; P Abrams
Journal:  Br J Urol       Date:  1996-06

4.  Validation of two global impression questionnaires for incontinence.

Authors:  Ilker Yalcin; Richard C Bump
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 8.661

5.  ICIQ: a brief and robust measure for evaluating the symptoms and impact of urinary incontinence.

Authors:  Kerry Avery; Jenny Donovan; Tim J Peters; Christine Shaw; Momokazu Gotoh; Paul Abrams
Journal:  Neurourol Urodyn       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 2.696

6.  Health-related quality of life measures for women with urinary incontinence: the Incontinence Impact Questionnaire and the Urogenital Distress Inventory. Continence Program in Women (CPW) Research Group.

Authors:  S A Shumaker; J F Wyman; J S Uebersax; D McClish; J A Fantl
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  1994-10       Impact factor: 4.147

7.  Prevalence and burden of overactive bladder in the United States.

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

8.  Incidence and remission of urinary incontinence in middle-aged women.

Authors:  Mary K Townsend; Kim N Danforth; Karen L Lifford; Bernard Rosner; Gary C Curhan; Neil M Resnick; Francine Grodstein
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 8.661

9.  Urinary incontinence incidence: quantitative meta-analysis of factors that explain variation.

Authors:  Walter F Stewart; Annemarie G Hirsh; H Lester Kirchner; Deseraé N Clarke; Marc J Litchtenfeld; Vatché A Minassian
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2013-10-16       Impact factor: 7.450

10.  Urinary incontinence in rural older women: prevalence, incidence and remission.

Authors:  I E Nygaard; J H Lemke
Journal:  J Am Geriatr Soc       Date:  1996-09       Impact factor: 5.562

View more
  3 in total

Review 1.  A systematic review of English language patient-reported outcome measures for use in urogynaecology and female pelvic medicine.

Authors:  Thomas G Gray; Holly Vickers; Priyanka Krishnaswamy; Swati Jha
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2021-05-26       Impact factor: 2.894

2.  Mixed Incontinence Masked as Stress Induced Urgency Urinary Incontinence.

Authors:  Vatché A Minassian; Xiaowei S Yan; James Pitcavage; Walter F Stewart
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2016-05-06       Impact factor: 7.450

3.  Does transition of urinary incontinence from one subtype to another represent progression of the disease?

Authors:  Vatché A Minassian; Xiaowei Yan; Anna L Pilzek; Raisa Platte; Walter F Stewart
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2018-03-13       Impact factor: 2.894

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.