On the access date, the e-USQOLAT database contained information about 911 female respondents from seven different countries (Fig. 1). Respondents are allocated to the groups of patients (with AC) and controls (without AC) according to the final diagnosis of the treating physician.
A total number of 517 respondents from four countries matched all the inclusion criteria and could be selected for further data processing and analysis (Fig. 1). Missing results of urinalysis accounted for the majority of mismatches in the inclusion criteria (360; 39.52% of total). Only 39 of excluded respondents had no sufficient questionnaire data (4.28% of total).
The age of the population included in the study ranged from 15 to 87 years with the following averages: median (interquartile range—IQR) − 30.50 (24.00; 40.00), mean ± SD − 34.38 ± 13.71. The group of controls consisted of 232 (44.87%) respondents with a median age (IQR) − 31.00 (25.00; 40.00), a mean age ± SD - 33.94 ± 12.25, ranging from 15 to 73 years. Two hundred eighty-five (55.13%) respondents in the group of patients had a median age (IQR) of 30.00 (24.00; 41.00), a mean age ± SD − 34.74 ± 14.80, ranging from 18 to 87 years old. The process of selection of the study population and essential demographic data are presented in Fig. 1 and Table 1.
Table 1 Demographics of the study population (patients with AC and controls without AC) Linear model fit analysis for “diagnostically significant grades” of pyuria revealed values of ≥ 25 WBC/µL for dipstick analysis and > 8000 WBC/mL for urine microscopy according to Nechiporenko [13] to have a statistically significant positive relationship with the diagnosis of AC: sensitivity − 0.85 [95% CI = 0.80; 0.89], specificity − 0.72 [0.66; 0.78], PPV − 0.79 [0.74;0.84], NPV − 0.80 [0.74; 0.85], crude DOR − 14.77 [9.57; 22.80], Youden index − 0.57 [0.46; 0.67].
The median number of positive symptoms for controls was 1 with IQR of 0–3 and differed significantly non-significant (p < 0.001) from that for patients, which was 5 with IQR of 4–6 (Fig. 2).
According to the ACSS data, the most common symptom among the entire study population was urinary frequency (72.92%). It included 47.84% of controls and 93.33% of patients. Whereas the majority of controls experienced “mild” urinary frequency (81/111 = 72.97%), “moderate” or “severe” values of the symptom were more “specific” for the group of patients (189/266 = 71.05%) (Table 2).
Table 2 ACSS parameters of the study population (patients with AC and controls without AC)s Figures 3 and 4, respectively, represent the prevalence, DOR and Youden’s index of the six “typical” symptoms and their severity, used in the ACSS questionnaire. All six symptoms had a significant positive association with a positive outcome (PO), i.e. diagnosis of AC. It also was verified that not only the presence of the symptoms but also their severity is important for the diagnosis (Fig. 4). More detailed results of the analysis of different diagnostic values of these symptoms and their severity are given in Supplementary Tables 1, 2, 3.
Scoring the symptoms into 0 (no symptom), 1 (mild), 2 (moderate), and 3 (severe) revealed for controls a median symptom score of 1 with IQR of 0–4 which significantly differed from that for patients: 10 with IQR of 7–13 (p < 0.001) (Fig. 5).
ROC curve analysis revealed the largest area under the curve (AUC) for the summary score of the “typical” domain of the ACSS (AUC [95% CI] = 0.93 [0.91; 0.95]), in descending order followed by dysuria (0.85 [0.82; 0.88]), urination urgency (0.85 [0.82; 0.88]), sense of incomplete bladder emptying (0.79 [0.75; 0.83]), suprapubic pain (0.74 [0.70; 0.78]), and visible blood in urine (0.63 [0.60; 0.67]) (Fig. 6).
Sensitivity and specificity (average [95% CI]) for the different proposed approaches of diagnosing AC are the following:
- (a)
0.84 [0.79; 0.88] and 0.83 [0.77; 0.87] for the draft approach by EMAFootnote 1;
- (b)
0.83 [0.78; 0.87] and 0.88 [0.84; 0.92] for the draft approach by FDAFootnote 2; and
- (c)
0.87 [0.83; 0.91] and 0.88 [0.83; 0.91] for the cut-off value of the ACSSFootnote 3, respectively.
The differences in diagnostic values between these three diagnostic approaches are, however, statistically not significant (p > 0.05) (Supplementary Tables 2 and 3).
If the cut-off value of the ACSS is combined with positive pyuria, then the specificity and sensitivity change to 0.96 [0.93; 0.98] and 0.73 [0.67; 0.78], respectively.
Pyuria by itself had a reasonable sensitivity (0.85 [0.80; 0.89]) and specificity (0.72 [0.66; 0.78]) (Suppl. Table 2).
The ROC curve analysis of the proposed diagnostic approaches demonstrated the best balance between sensitivity and specificity in the following descending order: ACSS cut-off value of ≥ 6 of “typical” domain (AUC [95% CI] of 0.87 [0.84; 0.90]), draft proposal by FDA (0.85 [0.82; 0.88]), and the draft proposal by EMA (0.83 [0.80; 0.87]). However, the differences in AUC between the three mentioned approaches were statistically non-significant (p > 0.05).
Diagnostic values of different numbers and scores of symptoms with or without considering pyuria are presented in Supplementary Tables 2 and 3. Graphical representation of the different diagnostic proposals by FDA, EMA, and ACSS is given as Supplementary Figs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9.