Instruments Used for the Assessment of SUI Severity in Urogynecologic Surgical Trials: A Scoping Review.

IF 1.8 3区 医学 Q3 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Themistoklis Mikos, Iakovos Theodoulidis, Tilemachos Karalis, Menelaos Zafrakas, Grigoris F Grimbizis
{"title":"Instruments Used for the Assessment of SUI Severity in Urogynecologic Surgical Trials: A Scoping Review.","authors":"Themistoklis Mikos, Iakovos Theodoulidis, Tilemachos Karalis, Menelaos Zafrakas, Grigoris F Grimbizis","doi":"10.1007/s00192-024-05934-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction and hypothesis: </strong>Various instruments are used to evaluate the severity of stress urinary incontinence (SUI) in clinical trials for SUI surgery. We conducted a scoping review with the primary aim of investigating the use of such instruments.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A comprehensive search in PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP was carried out. Inclusion criteria were studies including patients undergoing surgical intervention for SUI with assessment of SUI severity performed pre- and post-operatively. Exclusion criteria were nonprospective studies, nonrandomized studies, studies not in the English language, and the absence of reporting the methods of SUI severity evaluation in the study.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 8,886 articles were identified, yielding 100 papers for data extraction. The most frequent interventions were mid-urethral slings (85 studies), Burch colposuspension (10 studies), and the use of bulking agents (3 studies). The most frequently used instruments for objective evaluation of SUI were urodynamics (90 studies), nonvalidated cough stress test (83 studies), and 1-h pad test (28 studies). The most frequently used instruments for subjective evaluation were bladder diary (37 studies), Incontinence Impact Questionnaire-7 (26 studies), and Urinary Distress Inventory-6 (23 studies). There were three studies reporting results according to the severity of pre- and post-operative SUI.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There is significant heterogeneity regarding the instruments used to evaluate the severity of SUI in surgical trials for female incontinence. There is a paucity of data regarding results according to the pre-operative severity of SUI. Hence, commonly agreed standardized methods for the assessment of SUI severity are needed to improve comparability between clinical trials for SUI surgery.</p>","PeriodicalId":14355,"journal":{"name":"International Urogynecology Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Urogynecology Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-024-05934-w","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis: Various instruments are used to evaluate the severity of stress urinary incontinence (SUI) in clinical trials for SUI surgery. We conducted a scoping review with the primary aim of investigating the use of such instruments.

Methods: A comprehensive search in PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP was carried out. Inclusion criteria were studies including patients undergoing surgical intervention for SUI with assessment of SUI severity performed pre- and post-operatively. Exclusion criteria were nonprospective studies, nonrandomized studies, studies not in the English language, and the absence of reporting the methods of SUI severity evaluation in the study.

Results: In total, 8,886 articles were identified, yielding 100 papers for data extraction. The most frequent interventions were mid-urethral slings (85 studies), Burch colposuspension (10 studies), and the use of bulking agents (3 studies). The most frequently used instruments for objective evaluation of SUI were urodynamics (90 studies), nonvalidated cough stress test (83 studies), and 1-h pad test (28 studies). The most frequently used instruments for subjective evaluation were bladder diary (37 studies), Incontinence Impact Questionnaire-7 (26 studies), and Urinary Distress Inventory-6 (23 studies). There were three studies reporting results according to the severity of pre- and post-operative SUI.

Conclusions: There is significant heterogeneity regarding the instruments used to evaluate the severity of SUI in surgical trials for female incontinence. There is a paucity of data regarding results according to the pre-operative severity of SUI. Hence, commonly agreed standardized methods for the assessment of SUI severity are needed to improve comparability between clinical trials for SUI surgery.

泌尿妇科手术试验中用于评估 SUI 严重程度的工具:范围审查。
导言和假设:在压力性尿失禁(SUI)手术的临床试验中,使用了多种工具来评估压力性尿失禁(SUI)的严重程度。我们进行了一项范围综述,主要目的是调查此类工具的使用情况:我们在 PubMed/MEDLINE、Cochrane 图书馆、ClinicalTrials.gov 和 WHO ICTRP 中进行了全面检索。纳入标准包括接受 SUI 手术治疗的患者,并在术前和术后对 SUI 严重程度进行评估的研究。排除标准为非前瞻性研究、非随机研究、非英语研究以及未报告 SUI 严重程度评估方法的研究:结果:共发现了 8886 篇文章,其中有 100 篇进行了数据提取。最常用的干预措施是尿道中段吊带(85 项研究)、Burch 结肠悬吊术(10 项研究)和使用膨大剂(3 项研究)。最常用的 SUI 客观评估工具是尿动力学(90 项研究)、未经验证的咳嗽压力测试(83 项研究)和 1 小时垫测试(28 项研究)。最常用的主观评估工具是膀胱日记(37 项研究)、尿失禁影响问卷-7(26 项研究)和尿失禁压力量表-6(23 项研究)。有三项研究根据术前和术后 SUI 的严重程度报告了结果:结论:在女性尿失禁手术试验中,用于评估 SUI 严重程度的工具存在明显的异质性。根据术前 SUI 严重程度得出结果的数据很少。因此,需要共同认可的 SUI 严重程度标准化评估方法,以提高 SUI 手术临床试验之间的可比性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
22.20%
发文量
406
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: The International Urogynecology Journal is the official journal of the International Urogynecological Association (IUGA).The International Urogynecology Journal has evolved in response to a perceived need amongst the clinicians, scientists, and researchers active in the field of urogynecology and pelvic floor disorders. Gynecologists, urologists, physiotherapists, nurses and basic scientists require regular means of communication within this field of pelvic floor dysfunction to express new ideas and research, and to review clinical practice in the diagnosis and treatment of women with disorders of the pelvic floor. This Journal has adopted the peer review process for all original contributions and will maintain high standards with regard to the research published therein. The clinical approach to urogynecology and pelvic floor disorders will be emphasized with each issue containing clinically relevant material that will be immediately applicable for clinical medicine. This publication covers all aspects of the field in an interdisciplinary fashion
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信