International Urogynecology Journal

, Volume 15, Issue 2, pp 111–116

Comparison of the ICIQ-SF and 24-hour pad test with other measures for evaluating the severity of urodynamic stress incontinence

  • Emmanuel Karantanis
  • Michelle Fynes
  • Kate H. Moore
  • Stuart L. Stanton
Original Article

Abstract

This study compared the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire—Short Form (ICIQ-SF) and the 24-h pad test with other measures that assess severity of urinary loss in women with urodynamic stress incontinence (USI). Ninety-five women with primary or recurrent (secondary) USI were recruited. Assessment of the severity of urinary loss was made using the ICIQ-SF, a 24-h pad test, continence questionnaire, Stamey grade, and 3-day frequency volume diary. The relationship between these measures of incontinence severity was analysed. The mean age was 54 years (SD±12) and median parity 2 (IQR 1–3). In the primary USI group there was a strong correlation between the ICIQ-SF and the 24-h pad test (r=0.458, P =0.000). Both the ICIQ-SF (Kendall’s’ tau b=0.331, p =0.003) and 24-h pad test (Kendall’s tau b=0.399, p =0.002) also correlated with the mean frequency of urinary loss on diary but not with the Stamey grade. No subjective or objective tests correlated with each other in women with secondary USI. These results demonstrate a good correlation between the 24-h pad test diary loss, and ICIQ-SF in women with primary USI. Because it also includes a measure of quality of life impact in a short user-friendly format, we suggest that the ICIQ-SF should have widespread applicability as an outcome measure in patients with stress incontinence.

Keywords

Outcome measures Quality of life Severity Stress incontinence 

References

  1. 1.
    Sutherst J, Brown M, Shawer M (1981) Assessing the severity of urinary incontinence in women by weighing perineal pads. Lancet 1:1128–1130CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mouritsen L, Berild G, Hertz J (1989) Comparison of different methods for quantification of urinary leakage in incontinent women. Neurourol Urodynam 8:579–587Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Versi E, Orrego G, Hardy E, Seddon G, Smith P, Anand D (1996) Evaluation of the home pad test in the investigation of female urinary incontinence. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 103:162–167PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    O’Sullivan R, Yoong W, Allen W, Buckland S, Moore K (2000) The repeatability and definition of mild, moderate and severe on the 24 hour pad test in 96 incontinent women. Neurourol Urodyn 19:480–481Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Groutz A, Blaivas JG, Chaikin DC, Resnick NM, Engleman K, Anzalone D, et al (2000) Noninvasive outcome measures of urinary incontinence and lower urinary tract symptoms: a multicenter study of micturition diary and pad tests. J Urol 164:698–701CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Christensen SJ, Colstrup H, Hertz JB, Lenstrup C, Frimodt-Moller C (1986) Inter-and intra-departmental variations of the perineal pad weighing test. Neurourol Uroydyn 5:23–28Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Simons AM, Yoong WC, Buckland S, Moore KH (2001) Inadequate repeatability of the one-hour pad test: the need for a new incontinence outcome measure. Bjog 108:315–319PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Avery K, Donovan J, Abrams P (2001) Validation of a new questionnaire for incontinence: the international consultation on incontinence questionnaire (ICI-Q). Neurourol Urodyn 20:86Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Donovan JL, Badia X, Corcos J, Gotoh M, Kelleher C, Naughton N, et al (2002) Symptom and quality of life assessment. In: Abrams P, Cardozo L, Khoury S, Wein A (eds) Incontinence, 2nd edn. Health Publication Ltd, Bristol, pp 269–316Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Stamey T (1979) Urinary incontinence in the female. Campbells Urology, 4th edn. WB Saunders Co., Philadelphia, pp 2272–2293Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bent A, Dmochowski RR, Herschorn S, Corcos J, Karram M, Radomski S (2002) Evaluation of Uryx versus contigen as periurethral bulking agents in female stress incontinence: a mulitcenter randomized controlled study. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 13[Supp 1]: S24Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sand PK, Dmochowski RR (2002) Clinical experience with coaptite urological bulking agent. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 13[Supp 1]: S20Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Baden WF, Walker TA (1972;) Genesis of the vaginal profile: a correlated classification of vaginal relaxation. Clin Obstet Gynecol 15:1048–1054PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schafer W, Abrams P, Liao L, Mattiasson A, Pesce F, Spangberg A, et al (2002) Good urodynamic practices: uroflowmetry, filling cystometry, and pressure-flow studies. Neurourol Urodyn 21:261–274CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Payne C, Van Kerrebroeck P (2002) Research methodology in urinary incontinence. In: Abrams P, Cardozo L, Khoury S, Wein A (eds) Incontinence. Health Publication Ltd, Bristol, pp 1047–1077Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Urogynecological Association 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Emmanuel Karantanis
    • 1
    • 2
  • Michelle Fynes
    • 2
  • Kate H. Moore
    • 3
  • Stuart L. Stanton
    • 2
  1. 1.Level 1, Clinical Sciences BuildingSt. George Hospital, KogarahSydneyAustralia
  2. 2.Pelvic Floor Reconstruction and Urogynaecology Unit, Department of Obstetrics and GynaecologySt. George’s HospitalLondonUK
  3. 3.The Pelvic Floor Unit, Department of Obstetrics and GynaecologyThe St. George HospitalSydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations