Advertisement

International Urogynecology Journal

, Volume 17, Issue 5, pp 520–524 | Cite as

Validity of the incontinence severity index: comparison with pad-weighing tests

  • Hogne Sandvik
  • Montserrat Espuna
  • Steinar Hunskaar
Original Article

Abstract

The incontinence severity index (ISI) consists of two questions, regarding frequency and amount of leakage. It categorizes urinary incontinence (UI) into slight, moderate, severe, and very severe. The purpose of this study was to test its validity. The index was compared with the results of pad-weighing tests performed by 200 incontinent women referred to a hospital clinic and 103 at a primary care incontinence clinic. Inconvenience was scored by a six-level Likert scale. Mean pad-weighing results (grams per 24 hours, 95% confidence intervals) were 7 (4–10) for slight, 39 (26–51) for moderate, 102 (75–128) for severe, and 200 (131–268) for very severe UI. Spearman’s correlation coefficient for pad-weighing results and severity index was 0.58 (p<0.01), and inconvenience increased significantly with increasing severity. The ISI demonstrated good criterion validity against 24-h pad tests. Good construct validity was indicated by a clear link between ISI and inconvenience.

Keywords

Urinary incontinence Severity of illness index Pad-weighing tests Comparative study 

Notes

Acknowledgement

The study was supported by a research grant from Eli Lilly Spain to the Fundacion Clinic for Biomedical Research.

References

  1. 1.
    Hunskaar S, Burgio K, Diokno A, Herzog AR, Hjalmas K, Lapitan MC (2002) Epidemiology and natural history of urinary incontinence. In: Abrams P, Cardozo L, Khoury S, Wein A (eds) Incontinence: 2nd International Consultation on Incontinence. Health Publication Ltd., Plymouth, UK, pp 165–201Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sandvik H, Hunskaar S, Seim A, Hermstad R, Vanvik A, Bratt H (1993) Validation of a severity index in female urinary incontinence and its implementation in an epidemiological survey. J Epidemiol Community Health 47:497–499PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sandvik H, Seim A, Vanvik A, Hunskaar S (2000) A severity index for epidemiological surveys of female urinary incontinence: comparison with 48-hour pad-weighing tests. Neurourol Urodyn 19:137–145PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hanley J, Capewell A, Hagen S (2001) Validity study of the severity index, a simple measure of urinary incontinence in women. BMJ 322:1096–1097PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hannestad YS, Rortveit G, Sandvik H, Hunskaar S (2000) A community-based epidemiological survey of female urinary incontinence: the Norwegian EPINCONT study. Epidemiology of incontinence in the county of Nord-Trondelag. J Clin Epidemiol 53:1150–1157PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Yu HJ, Wong WY, Chen J, Chie WC (2003) Quality of life impact and treatment seeking of Chinese women with urinary incontinence. Qual Life Res 12:327–333PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rortveit G, Daltveit AK, Hannestad YS, Hunskaar S (2003) Urinary incontinence after vaginal delivery or cesarean section. N Engl J Med 348:900–907PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hannestad YS, Lie RT, Rortveit G, Hunskaar S (2004) Familial risk of urinary incontinence in women: population based cross sectional study. BMJ 329:889–891PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hägglund D, Walker-Engström ML, Larsson G, Leppert J (2003) Reasons why women with long-term urinary incontinence do not seek professional help: a cross-sectional population-based cohort study. Int Urogynecol J 14:296–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Iglesias FJG, Ocerin JMCY, Martin JPDM, Gama EV, Perez ML, Lopez MR, Aranguren MVP, Munoz JBG (2000) Prevalence and psychosocial impact of urinary incontinence in older people of a Spanish rural population. J Gerontol 55A:M207–214Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Seim A, Sivertsen B, Eriksen BC, Hunskaar S (1996) Treatment of urinary incontinence in women in general practice: observational study. BMJ 312:1459–1462PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Indrekvam S, Sandvik H, Hunskaar S (2001) A Norwegian national cohort of 3198 women treated with home-managed electrical stimulation for urinary incontinence—effectiveness and treatment results. Scand J Urol Nephrol 35:32–39PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Arya LA, Jackson ND, Myers DL, Verma A (2001) Risk of new-onset urinary incontinence after forceps and vacuum delivery in primiparous women. Am J Obstet Gynecol 185:1318–1323PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kerschan-Schindl K, Uher E, Wiesinger G, Kaider A, Ebenbichler G, Nicolakis P, Kollmitzer J, Preisinger E, Fialka-Moser V (2002) Reliability of pelvic floor muscle strength measurement in elderly incontinent women. Neurourol Urodyn 21:42–47PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chiarelli P, Cockburn J (2002) Promoting urinary continence in women after delivery: randomised controlled trial. BMJ 324:1241PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Melville JL, Miller EA, Fialkow MF, Lentz GM, Miller JL, Fenner DE (2003) Relationship between patient report and physician assessment of urinary incontinence severity. Am J Obstet Gynecol 189:76–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Donovan JL, Badia X, Corcos J, Gotoh M, Kelleher C, Naughton M, Shaw C, Lukacs B (2002) Symptom and quality of life assessment. In: Abrams P, Cardozo L, Khoury S, Wein A (eds) Incontinence: 2nd International Consultation on Incontinence. Health Publication Ltd., Plymouth, UK, pp 267–316Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Donovan JL, Ruud Bosch JLH, Gotoh M, Jackson S, Naughton M, Radley S, Valiquette L (2005) Symptom and quality of life assessment. In: Abrams P, Cardozo L, Khoury S, Wein A (eds) Incontinence: 3rd International Consultation on Incontinence. Health Publication Ltd., Plymouth, UK, pp 519–584Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    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
  20. 20.
    Artibani W, Andersen JT, Gajewski JB, Ostergard DR, Raz S, Tubaro A, Khullar V, Klarskov P, Rodriguez L (2002) Imaging and other investigations. In: Abrams P, Cardozo L, Khoury S, Wein A (eds) Incontinence: 2nd International Consultation on Incontinence. Health Publication Ltd., Plymouth, UK, pp 425–477Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Groutz A, Blaivas JG, Chaikin DC, Resnick NM, Engleman K, Anzalone D, Bryzinski B, Wein AJ (2000) Noninvasive outcome measures of urinary incontinence and lower urinary tract symptoms: a multicenter study of micturition diary and pad tests. J Urol 164:698–701PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    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 68:211–215PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    O’Sullivan R, Karantanis E, Stevermuer TL, Allen W, Moore KH (2004) Definition of mild, moderate and severe incontinence on the 24-hour pad test. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 111:859–862Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Urogynecology Journal 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hogne Sandvik
    • 1
  • Montserrat Espuna
    • 2
  • Steinar Hunskaar
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Public Health and Primary Health CareUniversity of BergenBergenNorway
  2. 2.Institut Clinic de Ginecología Obstetricia I Neonatología, Hospital ClínicUniversity of BarcelonaBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations