Abstract
Introduction and hypothesis
The purpose of the study was to examine whether a test performed during urodynamics, the “1-3-5 cough test”, could determine the severity of urodynamic stress incontinence (USI).
Methods
We included women referred for urodynamics who were diagnosed with USI. The “1-3-5 cough test” was performed to grade the severity of USI at the completion of filling cystometry. A diagnosis of “severe”, “moderate” or “mild” USI was given if urine leakage was observed after one, three or five consecutive coughs respectively. We examined the associations between grades of USI severity and measures of subjective perception of stress urinary incontinence (SUI): International Consultation of Incontinence Modular Questionnaire—Female Lower Urinary Tract Symptom (ICIQ-FLUTS), King’s Health Questionnaire (KHQ), Urinary Distress Inventory-6 (UDI-6), Urinary Impact Questionnaire-7 (UIQ-7).
Results
A total of 1,181 patients completed the ICIQ-FLUTS and KHQ and 612 completed the UDI-6 and UIQ-7 questionnaires. There was a statistically significant association of higher grades of USI severity with higher scores of the incontinence domain of the ICIQ-FLUTS. The scores of the UDI-6, UIQ-7 and of all KHQ domains (with the exception of general health perception and personal relationships) had statistically significant larger mean values for higher USI severity grade. Groups of higher USI severity had statistically significant associations with higher scores of most of the subjective measures of SUI.
Conclusions
Severity of USI, as defined by the “1-3-5 cough test”, was associated with the severity of subjective measures of SUI. This test may be a useful tool for the objective interpretation of patients with SUI who undergo urodynamics.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Haylen BT, de Ridder D, Freeman RM, Swift SE, Berghmans B 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 21:5–26. doi:10.1007/s00192-009-0976-9
Kelleher C, Staskin D, Cherian P, Cotterill N, Coyne K, Kopp Z, Symonds T (2013) Patient reported outcome assessment. In: Abrams P, Cardozo L, Khoury S, Wein A (eds) Incontinence, 5th edn. EAU-ICUD, Paris, p 389
McGuire EJ, Fitzpatrick CC, Wan J, Bloom DA, Sanvordenker J, Ritchey M et al (1993) Clinical assessment of urethral sphincter function. J Urol 150:1452–1454
Nitti VW, Combs AJ (1996) Correlation of Valsalva leak point pressure with subjective degree of stress urinary incontinence in women. J Urol 155:281–285
Nager CW, Schulz JA, Stanton SV, Monga A (2001) Correlation of urethral closure pressure, leak point pressure and incontinence severity measures. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 12:395–400
Theofrastous JP, Bump RC, Elser DM, Wyman JF, Mc-Clish DK (1995) Correlation of urodynamic measures of urethral resistance with clinical measures of incontinence severity in women with pure genuine stress incontinence. The Continence Program for Women Research Group. Am J Obstet Gynecol 173:407–412
Athanasiou S, Grigoriadis T, Kyriakidou N, Giannoulis G, Antsaklis A (2012) The validation of international consultation on incontinence questionnaires in the Greek language. Neurourol Urodyn 31(7):1141–1144
Kelleher CJ, Cardozo LD, Khullar V, Salvatore S (1997) A new questionnaire to assess the quality of life of urinary incontinent women. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 104:1374–1379
Grigoriadis T, Athanasiou S, Giannoulis G, Mylona SC, Lourantou D, Antsaklis A (2013) Translation and psychometric evaluation of the Greek short forms of two condition-specific quality of life questionnaires for women with pelvic floor disorders: PFDI-20 and PFIQ-7. Int Urogynecol J 24(12):2131–2134
Schäfer W, Abrams P, Liao L, Mattiasson A, Pesce F, Spangberg A, Sterling AM, Zinner NR, van Kerrebroeck P (2002) Good urodynamic practices: uroflowmetry, filling cystometry, and pressure-flow studies. Neurourol Urodyn 21(3):261–274
Versi E, Cardozo L (1986) Perineal pad weighing versus videographic analysis in genuine stress incontinence. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 93(4):364–366
Barber M, Visco A, Wyman J, Fantl J, Bump R (2002) Continence program for women research group. Sexual function in women with urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse. Am Coll Obstet Gynaecol 9:281–289
Abrams P (1997) Urodynamics, 2nd edn. Springer, London, p 1
Nager CW, Kraus SR, Kenton K, Sirls L, Chai TC, Wai C et al (2010) Urodynamics, the supine empty bladder stress test, and incontinence severity. Urinary incontinence treatment network. Neurourol Urodyn 29(7):1306–1311
Chen CC, Rooney CM, Paraiso MF, Kleeman SD, Walters MD, Karram MM, Barber MD (2008) Leak point pressure does not correlate with incontinence severity or bother in women undergoing surgery for urodynamic stress incontinence. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 19(9):1193–1198
Rosier P, Kuo HC, De Gennaro M, Kakizaki H, Hashim H, Van Meel TD, Toosz Hobson P (2013) Urodynamic testing. In: Abrams P, Cardozo L, Khoury S, Wein A (eds) Incontinence, 5th edn. EAU-ICUD, Paris, p 446
Kelleher CJ, Pleil AM, Reese PR, Burgess SM, Brodish PH (2004) How much is enough and who says so? The case of the King’s Health Questionnaire and overactive bladder. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 111:605–612
Ashton-Miller JA, DeLancey JO (2007) Functional anatomy of the female pelvic floor. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1101:266–296
Rodríguez 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
Conflict of Interest
None
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Grigoriadis, T., Giannoulis, G., Zacharakis, D. et al. The “1-3-5 cough test”: comparing the severity of urodynamic stress incontinence with severity measures of subjective perception of stress urinary incontinence. Int Urogynecol J 27, 419–425 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-015-2808-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-015-2808-4