Advertisement

International Urogynecology Journal

, Volume 25, Issue 7, pp 947–951 | Cite as

The “bother” of urinary incontinence

  • Gerda Trutnovsky
  • Daniela Ulrich
  • Rodrigo Guzman Rojas
  • Kristy Mann
  • Thomas Aigmueller
  • Hans P. Dietz
Original Article

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

Patient reported measures are important for the evaluation of symptom-specific bother and the distinction between different types of urinary incontinence. The aim of the study was to assess the validity of physician administered visual analogue scales (VAS) for the bother from stress urinary incontinence (SUI) and urge urinary incontinence (UUI).

Methods

In this prospective cohort study based at a tertiary urogynecological unit, women attending for investigation of lower urinary tract symptoms (n = 504) were asked to indicate their subjective bother from SUI and UUI on a 10-cm VAS. Clinical assessment, including multichannel urodynamic testing and 4D translabial ultrasound was performed for clinical diagnosis. Linear regression was used to model the average increase in VAS bother score of SUI and UUI for each explanatory variable.

Results

74 % (n = 375) reported symptoms of SUI, with mean bother of 5.7 out of 10 (SD 2.8), and 73 % (n = 370) symptoms of UUI, with a mean bother of 6.5 out of 10 (SD 2.6). Bother from UUI was positively associated with the symptoms of nocturia (p < 0.0001) and frequency (p = 0.002), and the urodynamic findings of detrusor overactivity (p < 0.0001). Bother from SUI was positively related to the urodynamic diagnosis of USI (p < 0.0001) and a low abdominal leak point pressure (ALPP) (p = 0.002), as well as to the ultrasound findings of cystourethrocele (p < 0.0001) and funnelling (p = 0.04). All univariate associations remained highly significant on multivariate analysis, controlling for age, BMI, parity, previous incontinence/prolapse surgery and previous hysterectomy.

Conclusions

Physician-administered VAS are a valid, reliable and practicable tool to measure bother related to SUI and UUI.

Keywords

Visual analogue scale Bother Stress urinary incontinence Urge urinary incontinence Urodynamics Translabial ultrasound 

Notes

Financial disclaimer

H.P. Dietz has received unrestricted educational grants from GE Medical.

Conflict of interest

None.

References

  1. 1.
    De Ridder D, Roumeguere T, Kaufman L (2013) Overactive bladder symptoms, stress urinary incontinence and associated bother in women aged 40 and above; a Belgian epidemiological survey. Int J Clin Pract 67:198–204PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Riss P, Kargl J (2011) Quality of life and urinary incontinence in women. Maturitas 68:137–142PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Stewart WF, Van Rooyen JB, Cundiff GW, Abrams P, Herzog AR, Corey R et al (2003) Prevalence and burden of overactive bladder in the United States. World J Urol 20:327–336PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Coyne KS, Sexton CC, Irwin DE, Kopp ZS, Kelleher CJ, Milsom I (2008) The impact of overactive bladder, incontinence and other lower urinary tract symptoms on quality of life, work productivity, sexuality and emotional well-being in men and women: results from the EPIC study. BJU Int 101:1388–1395PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Haylen BT, de Ridder D, Freeman RM, Swift SE, Berghmans B, Lee J et al (2010) An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for female pelvic floor dysfunction. Int Urogynecol J 21:5–26PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Parker-Autry CY, Barber MD, Kenton K, Richter HE (2013) Measuring outcomes in urogynecological surgery: “perspective is everything”. Int Urogynecol J 24:15–25PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Abrams P, Artibani W, Gajewski JB, Hussain I (2006) Assessment of treatment outcomes in patients with overactive bladder: importance of objective and subjective measures. Urology 68:17–28PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Uebersax JS, Wyman JF, Shumaker SA, McClish DK, Fantl JA (1995) Short forms to assess life quality and symptom distress for urinary incontinence in women: the Incontinence Impact Questionnaire and the Urogenital Distress Inventory. Continence Program for Women Research Group. Neurourol Urodyn 14:131–139PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bjelic-Radisic V, Dorfer M, Tamussino K, Greimel E (2005) Psychometric properties and validation of the German-language King’s Health Questionnaire in women with stress urinary incontinence. Neurourol Urodyn 24:63–68PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Stach-Lempinen B, Kujansuu E, Laippala P, Metsanoja R (2001) Visual analogue scale, urinary incontinence severity score and 15 D–psychometric testing of three different health-related quality-of-life instruments for urinary incontinent women. Scand J Urol Nephrol 35:476–483PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Abdel-Fattah M, Ramsay I, Barrington JW (2007) A simple visual analogue scale to assess the quality of life in women with urinary incontinence. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 133:86–89PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lukacz ES, Lawrence JM, Burchette RJ, Luber KM, Nager CW, Buckwalter JG (2004) The use of Visual Analog Scale in urogynecologic research: a psychometric evaluation. Am J Obstet Gynecol 191:165–170PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Stach-Lempinen B, Kirkinen P, Laippala P, Metsanoja R, Kujansuu E (2004) Do objective urodynamic or clinical findings determine impact of urinary incontinence or its treatment on quality of life? Urology 63:67–71, discussion 71–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ulrich D, Rojas RG, Dietz HP, Mann K, Trutnovsky G (2013) Evaluation of VAS for bother of prolapse. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol doi:  10.1002/uog.13222 Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ryhammer AM, Laurberg S, Djurhuus JC, Hermann AP (1998) No relationship between subjective assessment of urinary incontinence and pad test weight gain in a random population sample of menopausal women. J Urol 159:800–803PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jackson S (1997) The patient with an overactive bladder–symptoms and quality-of-life issues. Urology 50:18–22, discussion 23–14PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Frazer MI, Sutherst JR, Holland EF (1987) Visual analogue scores and urinary incontinence. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 295:582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Frazer MI, Haylen BT, Sutherst JR (1989) The severity of urinary incontinence in women. Comparison of subjective and objective tests. Br J Urol 63:14–15PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dietz HP, Nazemian K, Shek KL, Martin A (2013) Can urodynamic stress incontinence be diagnosed by ultrasound? Int Urogynecol J 24:1399–1403PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chantarasorn V, Dietz HP (2012) Diagnosis of cystocele type by clinical examination and pelvic floor ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 39:710–714PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bo K (1994) Reproducibility of instruments designed to measure subjective evaluation of female stress urinary incontinence. Scand J Urol Nephrol 28:97–100PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Guyatt GH, Feeny DH, Patrick DL (1993) Measuring health-related quality of life. Ann Intern Med 118:622–629PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rodriguez LV, Blander DS, Dorey F, Raz S, Zimmern P (2003) Discrepancy in patient and physician perception of patient’s quality of life related to urinary symptoms. Urology 62:49–53PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lemack GE, Zimmern PE (1999) Predictability of urodynamic findings based on the Urogenital Distress Inventory-6 questionnaire. Urology 54:461–466PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Marschall-Kehrel D, Roberts RG, Brubaker L (2006) Patient-reported outcomes in overactive bladder: the influence of perception of condition and expectation for treatment benefit. Urology 68:29–37PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The International Urogynecological Association 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gerda Trutnovsky
    • 1
    • 3
  • Daniela Ulrich
    • 1
    • 3
  • Rodrigo Guzman Rojas
    • 1
    • 4
  • Kristy Mann
    • 2
  • Thomas Aigmueller
    • 3
  • Hans P. Dietz
    • 1
  1. 1.Sydney Medical School Nepean, Obstetrics and GynaecologyUniversity of SydneySydneyAustralia
  2. 2.NHMRC Clinical Trial CentreUniversity of SydneySydneyAustralia
  3. 3.Obstetrics and GynecologyMedical University of GrazGrazAustria
  4. 4.Ginecología y ObstetriciaClínica Alemana de SantiagoSantiago Región MetropolitanaChile

Personalised recommendations