Top

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2021 | Urinary Incontinence | Research

Identification of the Urogenital Distress Inventory-6 and the Incontinence Impact Questionnaire-7 cutoff scores in urinary incontinent women

Authors: Katarzyna Skorupska, Magdalena Emilia Grzybowska, Agnieszka Kubik-Komar, Tomasz Rechberger, Pawel Miotla

Published in: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes | Issue 1/2021

Abstract

Purpose

Urogenital Distress Inventory-6 (UDI-6), Incontinence Impact Questionnaire-7 (IIQ-7) and The International Consultation on Incontinence (ICIQ-SF) Short Form are used to diagnose individuals with urinary incontinence (UI) and to assess the impact of the dysfunction on patient quality of life. While ICIQ-SF has fixed cutoff values—UDI-6 and IIQ-7 do not. We aimed to find the cutoff scores for UDI-6 and IIQ-7 in women with UI.

Methods

The study involved 205 women aged between 31 and 83 years—155 with, and 50 without UI symptoms. All participants completed all three questionnaires: ICIQ-SF, UDI-6 and IIQ-7. Patients were categorized according to their ICIQ-SF scores, as symptomatic ICIQ-SF ≥ 6 (n = 134) and asymptomatic ICIQ < 6 (n = 60). The Receiver Operating Characteristics (ROC) curve was used to test how well UDI-6 allowed a discrimination between patients suffering from UI and those who do not. Area under Curve (AUC) statistic was calculated to measure the UDI-6 and IIQ-7 Total Score efficiency.

Results

The cutoff values were selected. On the basis of the ROC curve analysis, the UDI-6 Total Score of 33.33 and IIQ-7 Total Score of 9.52 were determined to be the optimal cutoff for distinguishing between symptomatic and asymptomatic women (AUC = 0.94-UDI-6 and 0.91-IIQ-7).

Conclusions

For UDI-6 scores more than 33.33 indicate higher distress caused by UI symptoms. Moreover, the higher impact of UI on health- related quality of life is seen in women who scored 9 or more in the IIQ-7 questionnaire, and such women felt impaired quality of life.

Trial registration number NCT04433715, 11.06.2020 “retrospectively registered”.

Bedretdinova D, Fritel X, Panjo H, Ringa V. Prevalence of female urinary incontinence in the general population according to different definitions and study designs. Eur Urol. 2016;69:256–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.07.043.CrossRefPubMed

Cardozo L, Staskin D. Textbook of female urology and urogynecology—two-volume set. 4th ed. Abingdon: Taylor & Francis Ltd; 2016. p. 101.

Shumaker SA, Wyman JF, Uebersax JS, McClish D, Fantl JA. Health related quality of life measures for women with urinary incontinence: the urogenital distress inventory and the incontinence impact questionnaire. Qual Life Res. 1994;3:291–306. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00451721.CrossRefPubMed

Abrams P, Avery K, Gardener N, Donovan J. The international consultation on incontinence modular questionnaire: www.iciq.net. J Urol. 2006;175:1063–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(05)00348-4.CrossRefPubMed

Karmakar D, Mostafa A, Abdel-Fattah M. A new validated score for detecting patient-reported success on postoperative ICIQ-SF: a novel two-stage analysis from two large RCT cohorts. Int Urogynecol J. 2017;28:95–100. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-016-3070-0.CrossRefPubMed

Haylen BT, Maher CF, Barber MD, Camargo S, Dandolu V, Digesu A, Goldman HB, Huser M, Milani AL, Moran PA, et al. An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) Joint Report on the Terminology for Female Pelvic Organ Prolapse (POP). Neurourol Urodyn. 2016;35:137–68. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-015-2932-1.CrossRefPubMed

Drake MJ. Fundamentals of terminology in lower urinary tract function. Neurourol Urodyn. 2018;37:13–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.23768.CrossRef

Bump RC, Mattiasson A, Bø K, Brubaker LP, DeLancey JO, Klarskov P, Shull BL, Smith AR. The standardization of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996;175:10–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0002-9378(96)70243-0.CrossRefPubMed

Diaz DC, Robinson D, Bosch R, Costantiini E, Ctterill N, Espuña-Pons M, Kocjancic E, Lemos N, Tarcan T, Yoshida M. Patient-reported outcome assessment. In: Abrams P, Cardozo L, Wagg A, Wein A, editors. Incontinence, vol. 1. 6th ed. Tokyo: ICUD ICS; 2017. p. 541–670.

10.

Shumaker SA, Wyman JF, Uebersax JS, McClish D, Fantl JA. Health-related quality of life measures for women with urinary incontinence: the Incontinence Impact Questionnaire and the Urogenital Distress Inventory. Qual Life Res. 1994;3:291–306. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00451721.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Uebersax JS, Wyman JF, Shumaker SA, McClish DK, Fantl JA, the Continence Program for Women Research Group. Short Forms to Assess Life Quality Symptom Distress for Urinary Incontinence in Women: The Incontinence Impact Questionnaire and the Urogenital Distress Inventory. Neurourol Urodyn. 1995;14:131–139. https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.1930140206.

12.

Skorupska KA, Miotla P, Kubik-Komar A, Skorupski P, Rechberger T. Development and validation of the Polish version of the Urogenital Distress Inventory short form and the Incontinence Impact Questionnaire short form. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2017;215:171–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2017.06.024.CrossRefPubMed

13.

R Development Core Team. A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria; 2006. p. 322–323.

14.

López-Ratón M, Rodríguez-Álvarez MX, Cadarso-Suárez C, Gude-Sampedro F. Optimal cutpoints: an R package for selecting optimal cutpoints in diagnostic tests. J Stat Softw. 2014;61:1–36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v061.i08.

15.

Kumar R, Indrayan A. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve for medical researchers. Indian Pediatr. 2011;48:277–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13312-011-0055-4.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Watson PF, Petrie A. Method agreement analysis: a review of correct methodology. Theriogenology. 2010;73:1167–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2010.01.003.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Nunnally JC. Pyschometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1978. p. 627–77.

18.

Akobeng AK. Understanding diagnostic tests 3: receiver operating characteristic curves. Acta Paediatr. 2007;96:644–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1651-2227.2006.00178.x.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Klovning A, Avery K, Sandvik H, Hunskaar S. Comparison of two questionnaires for assessing the severity of urinary incontinence: the ICIQ-UI SF versus the incontinence severity index. Neurourol Urodyn. 2009;28:411–5. https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.20674.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Gafni-Kane A, Zhou Y, Botros SM. Predictive modeling and threshold scores for care seeking among women with urinary incontinence: the short forms of the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory and Urogenital Distress Inventory. Neurourol Urodyn. 2016;35:949–54. https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.22833.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Cocci A, Cacciamani GE, Russo GI, Cerruto MA, Milanesi M, Medina LG, Cimino S, Artibani W, Morgia G, Carini M, Li Marzi V. Impact of preoperative patient characteristics and flow rate on failure, early complications, and voiding dysfunction after a transobturator tape procedure: a multicentre study. Int Neurourol J. 2017;21:282–8. https://doi.org/10.5213/inj.1734910.455.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

22.

Shumaker SA, Wyman JF, Uebersax JS, McClish D, Fantl JA. Health-related quality of life measures for women with urinary incontinence: the Incontinence Impact Questionnaire and the Urogenital Distress Inventory. Continence Program in Women (CPW) Research Group. Qual Life Res. 1994;3:291–306. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00451721.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Corcos J, Behlouli H, Beaulieu S. Identifying cut-off scores with neural networks for interpretation of the incontinence impact questionnaire. Neurourol Urodyn. 2002;21:198–203. https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.10005.CrossRefPubMed

24.

Botros S, Gandhi S, Abramov Y, Sand P, Nickolov A, Goldberg R. Normative values for the short forms of the UDI and IIQ in community dwelling women. ICS, Paris, France; 2004. p. 23–27. Abstract number 285.

Title: Identification of the Urogenital Distress Inventory-6 and the Incontinence Impact Questionnaire-7 cutoff scores in urinary incontinent women
Authors: Katarzyna Skorupska
Magdalena Emilia Grzybowska
Agnieszka Kubik-Komar
Tomasz Rechberger
Pawel Miotla
Publication date: 01-12-2021
Publisher: BioMed Central
Keywords: Urinary Incontinence
Urinary Incontinence
Published in: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes / Issue 1/2021
Electronic ISSN: 1477-7525
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-021-01721-z

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Identification of the Urogenital Distress Inventory-6 and the Incontinence Impact Questionnaire-7 cutoff scores in urinary incontinent women

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2021

Impact of a transition education program on health-related quality of life in pediatric patients with congenital heart disease: study design for a randomised controlled trial

Treatment adequacy and remission of depression and anxiety disorders and quality of life in primary care older adults

Family reported outcomes, an unmet need in the management of a patient's disease: appraisal of the literature

Transcultural adaptation and psychometric properties of Family Quality of Life Survey for caregivers of people with neurodegenerative disease: a study of Spanish families who live in the rural Spain–Portugal cross-border

Short Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (SWEMWBS): performance in a clinical sample in relation to PHQ-9 and GAD-7

Response shift in health-related quality of life measures in the presence of formative indicators