4.2 Article

Relationship between urinary symptoms reported in a postal questionnaire and urodynamic diagnosis

期刊

NEUROUROLOGY AND URODYNAMICS
卷 24, 期 2, 页码 100-105

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/nau.20093

关键词

categorization; epidemiological study; prediction

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To describe the relationship between symptoms reported in a self-completed postal questionnaire and urinary disorders based on urodynamic investigation. Methods: The study population was selected from women aged 40 years or over living in the community, who responded to a postal questionnaire. Following assessment and appropriate conservative interventions, those with a pre-defined level of severity of symptoms were offered urodynamic investigation. Logistic regression examined the association between urinary symptoms and the urodynamic diagnoses of detrusor overactivity (DO) and urodynamic stress incontinence (USI). Results: Four hundred eighty-eight women completed urodynamic investigation; 29.1% (142/488) were found to have DO, 33.6% (164/488) USI, 20.7% (101/488) mixed incontinence, and 16.6% (81/488) no urodynamic abnormality. Stress incontinence (SI) and urge incontinence (UI) were included in the risk model for USI. SI reported monthly or more was associated with increased risk of USI, and Ul reported weekly or more with decreased risk (sensitivity 76.9%; specificity 56.3%; positive predictive value (PPV) 67.8%). For DO, strong or overwhelming urgency, UI monthly or more, and nocturia once a night or more were all significantly associated with an increased risk while reporting of SUI monthly or more reduced the risk (sensitivity 63.1%; specificity 65.1%; PPV 63.1%). Conclusions: Urinary symptoms reported in a postal questionnaire are able to predict urodynamic diagnoses with moderate accuracy. These models may be useful tools with which to categorize urinary disorders for epidemiological study and, with further development, allocate first line treatment. (C) 2004 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

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

4.2
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