International Urogynecology Journal

, Volume 16, Issue 1, pp 63–68 | Cite as

The repeatability of the 24-hour pad test

  • E. Karantanis
  • W. Allen
  • T. L. Stevermuer
  • A. M. Simons
  • R. O’Sullivan
  • K. H. Moore
Original Article


A prospective observational study was conducted in a tertiary urogynaecology unit in women with the primary symptom of urinary incontinence to assess the repeatability of the 24-hour pad test. One hundred and eight women undertook seven 24-hour pad tests over 7 consecutive days together with 7 simultaneous fluid and activity charts. The results were analysed collectively and according to urodynamic subsets. Repeatability was assessed by repeated measures analysis of variance and univariate analysis of variance for each urodynamic diagnosis group (USI, mixed and no USI). Variation between pad test weights over the 7 days was low, supporting good repeatability. The number of days of pad testing required to approximate the 7-day average was 3 days. However, a single 24-hour pad test correlated highly with the 7-day average (r=0.881) and was considered sufficient to gauge leakage severity.


24-hour pad test Repeatability Female urinary incontinence 


  1. 1.
    Lose G, Fantl JA, Victor A, Walter S, Wells TL, Wyman J et al (1998) Outcome measures for research in adult women with symptoms of lower urinary tract dysfunction. Neurourol Urodyn 17:255–262CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sutherst J, Brown M, Shawer M (1981) Assessing the severity of urinary incontinence in women by weighing perineal pads. Lancet 1:1128–1130CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    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
  4. 4.
    Abrams P, Blaivas JG, Stanton SL, Andersen JT (1988) The standardisation of terminology of lower urinary tract function. The International Continence Society Committee on Standardisation of Terminology. Scand J Urol Nephrol Suppl 114:5–19PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    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 108:315–319CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jakobsen H, Kromann-Andersen B, Nielsen KK, Maegaard E (1993) Pad weighing tests with 50% or 75% bladder filling. Does it matter? Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 72:377–381PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fantl JA, Harkins SW, Wyman JF, Choi SC, Taylor JR (1987) Fluid loss quantitation test in women with urinary incontinence: a test-retest analysis. Obstet Gynecol 70:739–743PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Moore KH, O’Sullivan RJ, Simons A, Prashar S, Anderson P, Louey M (2003) Randomised controlled trial of nurse continence advisor therapy compared with standard urogynaecology regimen for conservative incontinence treatment: efficacy, costs and two year follow up. BJOG 110:649–657PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    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
  10. 10.
    Rasmussen A, Mouritsen L, Dalgaard A, Frimodt-Moller C (1994) Twenty-four hour pad weighing test: reproducibility and dependency of activity level and fluid intake. Neurourol Urodyn 13:261–265PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    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 103:162–167; comment 720PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lose G, Jorgensen L, Thunedborg P (1989) 24-hour home pad weighing test versus 1-hour ward test in the assessment of mild stress incontinence. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 68:211–215PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    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
  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.
    Abrams P, Cardozo L, Fall M, Griffiths D, Rosier P, Ulmsten U et al (2002) The standardisation of terminology of lower urinary tract function: report from the Standardisation Sub-committee of the International Continence Society. Am J Obstet Gynecol 187:116–126CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Altman DG (1995) Practical statistics for medical research. Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Urogynecological Association 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • E. Karantanis
    • 1
  • W. Allen
    • 1
  • T. L. Stevermuer
    • 2
  • A. M. Simons
  • R. O’Sullivan
    • 1
  • K. H. Moore
    • 1
  1. 1.The Pelvic Floor Unit, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Level 1, Clinical Sciences Building, The St. George HospitalUniversity of NSWKogarahAustralia
  2. 2.Centre for Health Service DevelopmentUniversity of WollongongAustralia

Personalised recommendations