4.1 Article

New Self-Reporting Questionnaire to Assess Urinary Tract Infections and Differential Diagnosis: Acute Cystitis Symptom Score

期刊

UROLOGIA INTERNATIONALIS
卷 92, 期 2, 页码 230-236

出版社

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000356177

关键词

Cystitis; Female; Quality of life; Urinary tract infection; Symptom score; Questionnaire; Patient-reported outcome

资金

  1. European Urological Scholarship Programme (EUSP) of the European Association of Urology (EAU)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Development and validation of a simple and standardized self-reporting questionnaire for acute uncomplicated cystitis (AUC) assessing typical and differential symptoms, quality of life and possible changes after therapy in female patients with AUC. Materials and Methods: Literature research, development and evaluation of the Acute Cystitis Symptom Score (ACSS), an 18-item self-reporting questionnaire including (a) six questions about 'typical' symptoms of AUC, (b) four questions regarding differential diagnoses, (c) three questions on quality of life and (d) five questions on additional conditions which may affect therapy. The ACSS was evaluated in 286 women (mean age 32.3 +/- 12.3 years) in the Russian and Uzbek language. Measurements of reliability, validity, predictive ability and responsiveness were performed. Results: Cronbach's alpha for the ACSS was 0.89, split-half reliability was 0.92 and correlation between halves was 0.85. Mann-Whitney test revealed significant difference scores of the 'typical' domain between patients and controls (10.75 vs. 2.02, p < 0.001). The optimal threshold score was 6 points, with a 94% sensitivity and 90% specificity to predict AUC. The symptom score decreased significantly when comparing before and after therapy (10.7 vs. 2.1, p < 0.001). Conclusion: The new validated ACSS is accurate enough and can be recommended for clinical studies and practice for initial diagnosis and monitoring treatment of AUC. Evaluation in other languages is in progress. (C) 2014 S. Karger AG, Basel

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据