Abstract
Compare the subjective and objective assessment of stress urinary incontinence (SUI) severity and improvement with treatment using patient- and clinician-rated global impression of severity (PGI-S, CGI-S) and improvement (PGI-I, CGI-I) scales. Five hundred fifty-three women with mild SUI were recruited via media advertising into a placebo-controlled duloxetine trial. PGI-S and CGI-S (normal, mild, moderate, severe) were administered at baseline and PGI-I and CGI-I (seven responses from “very much worse” to “very much better”) during treatment. Incontinence episode frequency (IEF) was determined from diaries. Agreements between clinician and patient ratings were assessed using Kappa and degree of association with Spearman’s correlation. There was only a slight agreement regarding severity, with 53% of ratings being different (Kappa = 0.14; 95%CI = 0.08, 0.20). When ratings differed, clinicians rated severity worse in 72% of cases than did patients. Agreement regarding improvement was moderate, with 42% of ratings being different (Kappa = 0.45; 95%CI = 0.39, 0.50). When ratings differed, clinicians rated improvement greater than did patients in 54% of cases. Patients’ assessments of severity correlated better with IEF (0.33) than did the clinicians’ (0.15). The correlations of PGI-I and CGI-I with IEF changes were similar (0.46 and 0.44). In this study, the subjective (patient) and objective (clinician) assessments of SUI improvement with treatment appear to be more closely aligned than are the assessments of initial SUI severity.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Hampel C, Wienhold D, Benken N, Eggersmann C, Thuroff JW (1997) Definition of overactive bladder and epidemiology of urinary incontinence. Urology 50(Suppl):4–14
Wyman JF, Harkins SW, Choi SC, Taylor JR, Fantl JA (1987) Psychosocial impact for urinary incontinence in women. Obstet Gynecol 70:378–381
Norton PA, Zinner NR, Yalcin I, Bump RC, Duloxetine Urinary Incontinence Study Group (2002) Duloxetine versus placebo in the treatment of stress urinary incontinence. Am J Obstet Gynecol 187(1):40–48
Wagner TH, Patrick DL, Bavendam TG, Martin ML, Buesching DP (1996) Quality of life of persons with urinary incontinence: development of a new measure. Urology 47(1):67–71, (discussion 71–72)
Patrick DL, Martin ML, Bushnell DM, Yalcin I, Wagner TH, Buesching DP (1999) Quality of life of women with urinary incontinence: further development of the incontinence quality of life instrument (I-QOL). Urology 53(1):71–76, (erratum in: Urology 53(5):1072)
Yalcin I, Bump RC (2003) Validation of two global impression questionnaires for incontinence. Am J Obstet Gynecol 189(1):98–101
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(1):76–80
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(1):49–53
Acknowledgement
Eli Lilly and Company funded this study.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Yalcin, I., Viktrup, L. Comparison of physician and patient assessments of incontinence severity and improvement. Int Urogynecol J 18, 1291–1295 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-007-0326-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-007-0326-8