Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Objective Evaluation of Overactive Bladder: Which Surveys Should I Use?

  • Overactive Bladder (A Klausner, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Bladder Dysfunction Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Overactive bladder (OAB) is a common condition that affects many adults, and prevalence increases with age in both men and women. It is characterized by symptoms of urinary frequency and urgency with or without urge incontinence in the absence of another proven etiology. As a diagnosis based solely on urinary symptoms, proper evaluation of OAB often depends on the use of psychometrically validated questionnaires to assess symptom severity and degree of bother. General urinary assessment forms can evaluate many urinary symptoms while modular questionnaires can focus on the most bothersome complaints. Many questionnaires have been formulated and validated to achieve these goals. Currently, the ideal questionnaire does not exist. This review attempts to outline the range of questionnaires available to the clinician to assist in evaluating symptoms as well as degree of impact on quality of life.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Irwin DE, Milsom I, Hunskaar S, et al. Population-based survey of urinary incontinence, overactive bladder, and other lower urinary tract symptoms in five countries: results of the EPIC study. Eur Urol. 2006;50:1306–14. discussion 14-5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Stewart WF, Van Rooyen JB, Cundiff GW, et al. Prevalence and burden of overactive bladder in the United States. World J Urol. 2003;20:327–36.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Abrams P, Cardozo L, Fall M, et al. The standardisation of terminology of lower urinary tract function: report from the Standardisation Sub-committee of the International Continence Society. Neurourol Urodyn. 2002;21:167–78.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Tubaro A, Palleschi G. Overactive bladder: epidemiology and social impact. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2005;17:507–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Milsom I, Abrams P, Cardozo L, et al. How widespread are the symptoms of an overactive bladder and how are they managed? A population-based prevalence study. BJU Int. 2001;87:760–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Donovan J, Bosch R, Gotoh M, et al. Symptom and quality of life assessment. In: Abrams P, Cardozo L, Khoury S, Wein A, editors. Incontinence: Proceedings of the Third International Consultation on Incontinence, June 26–29, 2004. 3rd ed. Plymouth: Health Publication; 2005. p. 519–84.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Aaronson NK. Quality of life assessment in clinical trials: methodologic issues. Control Clin Trials. 1989;10:S195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Avery KN, Bosch JL, Gotoh M, et al. Questionnaires to assess urinary and anal incontinence: review and recommendations. J Urol. 2007;177(1):39–49.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Hyman MJ, Groutz A, Blaivas JG. Detrusor instability in men: correlation of lower urinary tract symptoms with urodynamic findings. J Urol. 2001;166(2):550–2.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Khan MS, Chaliha C, Leskova L, et al. The relationship between urinary symptom questionnaires and urodynamic diagnoses: an analysis of two methods of questionnaire administration. BJOG. 2004;111(5):468–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Albo M, Wruck L, Baker J, et al. The relationships among measures of incontinence severity in women undergoing surgery for stress urinary incontinence. J Urol. 2007;177(5):1810–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. On SJ, Ku JH. Comparative study of international prostate symptom scores and urodynamic parameters in men and women with lower urinary tract symptoms. Urol Int. 2006;76(4):309–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Fayers P, de Haes J. Quality of life and clinical trials. Lancet. 1995;346:1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Penson DF, Litwin MS. Quality of life assessment in urology. Contemp Urol. 1997;9:53–66.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Testa MA, Simonson DC. Assessment of quality of life outcomes. N Engl J Med. 1996;334:835–40.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Kelly CE. Which questionnaires should be used in female urology practice? Curr Urol Rep. 2003;4(5):375–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Lepor H, Machi G. Comparison of AUA Symptom Index in unselected males and females between fifty-five and seventy-nine years of age. Urology. 1993;42:36–41.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Chai TC, Belville WD, McGuire EJ, et al. Specificity of the American Urological Association Voiding Symptom Index: comparison of unselected and selected samples of both sexes. J Urol. 1993;150:1710–3.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Scarpero HM, Fiske J, Nitti VW. The American Urological Association Symptom Index for lower urinary tract symptoms in women: correlation with degree of bother and impact on quality of life [Abstract]. J Urol. 2002;167:76.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Shumaker SA, Wyman JF, Uebersax JS, et al. Health-related quality of life measures for women with urinary incontinence: the urogenital distress inventory and the incontinence impact questionnaire. Quality Life Res. 1994;3:291–306.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Hagen S, Hanley J, Capewell A. Test-retest reliability, validity, and sensitivity to change of the urogenital distress inventory and the incontinence impact questionnaire. Neurourol Urodyn. 2002;21(6):534–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Uebersax JS, Wyman JF, Shumaker SA, et al. 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. 1995;14(2):131–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Jackson S, Donovan J, Brookes S, et al. The Bristol Female Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Questionnaires: development and psychometric testing. Br J Urol. 1996;7:805–12.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Coyne K, Revicki D, Hunt T, et al. Psychometric validation of an overactive bladder symptom and health-related quality of life questionnaire: the OAB-q. Qual Life Res. 2002;11(6):563–74.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Matza LS, Thompson CL, Krasnow J, et al. Test-retest reliability of four questionnaires for patients with overactive bladder: the overactive bladder questionnaire (OAB-q), patient perception of bladder condition (PPBC), urgency questionnaire (UQ), and the primary OAB symptom questionnaire (POSQ). Neurourol Urodyn. 2005;24(3):215–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Coyne KS, Schmier J, Hunt T, et al. Developing a specific HRQL instrument for overactive bladder. Value Health. 2000;3:141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Coyne K, Matza LS, Versi E. Urinary urgency: Can “gotta go” be measured? Poster presented at the 10th Annual Meeting of the International Society for Quality of Life Research, Prague, Czech Republic, 2003.

  28. Weinberger M, Oddone EZ, Henderson WG. Does increased access to primary care reduce hospital readmissions? Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study Group on Primary Care and Hospital Readmission. N Engl J Med. 1996;334:1441–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Piault E, Evans CJ, Espindle D, et al. Development and validation of the Overactive Bladder Satisfaction (OAB-S) Questionnaire. Neurourol Urodyn. 2008;27(3):179–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Donovan J, Naughton M, Gotoh M, et al. Symptom and quality of life assessment. In: Khoury S, Wein A, editors. Incontinence: Proceedings of the First International Consultation on Incontinence, June 28 – July 1, 1998 Plymouth. UK: Health Publication; 1999. p. 295–331.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Donovan J, Badia X, Corcos J, et al. Symptom and quality of life assessment. In: Cardozo L, Khoury S, Wein A, editors. Incontinence: Proceedings of the Second International Consultation on Incontinence, July 1-3, 2001. 2nd ed. Plymouth: Health Publication; 2002. p. 267–316.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Avery K, Donovan J, Peters TJ, et al. ICIQ: a brief and robust measure for evaluating the symptoms and impact of urinary incontinence. Neurourol Urodyn. 2004;23(4):322–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Abrams P, Avery K, Gardener N, et al. The international consultation on incontinence modular questionnaire: www.iciq.net. J Urol. 2006;175(3 Pt 1):1063-6; discussion 1066.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Donovan JK, Abrams P, Peters TJ, et al. The ICS-‘BPH’ study: the psychometric validity and reliability of the ICSmale questionnaire. Br J Urol. 1996;77:554.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Disclosure

No potential conflicts of interest related to this article were reported.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Scott Department of Urology, Baylor College of Medicine, 6620 Main St, Suite 1375, BCM 380, Houston, TX, 77030, USA

    Michael Shy

  2. Department of Urology, Weill-Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA

    Sophie G. Fletcher

  3. The Methodist Hospital, Center for Restorative Pelvic Medicine, 6560 Fannin, Suite 2100, Houston, TX, 77030, USA

    Sophie G. Fletcher

Authors
  1. Michael Shy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sophie G. Fletcher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sophie G. Fletcher.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Shy, M., Fletcher, S.G. Objective Evaluation of Overactive Bladder: Which Surveys Should I Use?. Curr Bladder Dysfunct Rep 8, 45–50 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11884-012-0167-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11884-012-0167-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation