Are urodynamic tests useful tools for the initial conservative management of non-neurogenic urinary incontinence? A review of the literature

Enrico Colli, Walter Artibani, John Goka, Fabio Parazzini, Alan J. Wein

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

42 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives: To summarise the evidence for the role of urodynamic tests in the diagnosis and classification of urinary incontinence. Methods: Reference lists in relevant papers were reviewed and MEDLINE searches conducted. Results: The mean sensitivity (specificity) of clinical history versus urodynamic tests was 0.82 (0.57) for stress incontinence, 0.69 (0.60) for urge incontinence/overactive bladder, and 0.51 (0.66) for patients with mixed incontinence. The proportion of women with a clinical diagnosis of urinary incontinence but with normal findings from urodynamic tests ranged from 3 to 8%. Overall sensitivity of urodynamic tests was about 85-90% in the diagnosis of urodynamic stress incontinence, but generally lower following diagnosis of urge and mixed incontinence. No relationship emerged between urodynamic test results and response to medical treatment. Conclusions: This literature review shows that the sensitivity of clinical history versus urodynamic tests was 0.82, 0.69 and 0.51 respectively for stress, urge and mixed urinary incontinence. It also suggests that urodynamic diagnosis does not predict response to treatment. These data add to the ongoing 'urodynamics or no urodynamics' debate in the evaluation of urinary incontinence and show that urodynamic testing may not be helpful for patients receiving initial non-invasive therapy. These data are in line with the conclusions of the 1st and 2nd International Consultations on incontinence.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)63-69
Number of pages7
JournalEuropean Urology
Volume43
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jan 1 2003

Fingerprint

Urodynamics
Urinary Incontinence
Urge Urinary Incontinence
Conservative Treatment
Overactive Urinary Bladder
MEDLINE
Therapeutics
Referral and Consultation
Sensitivity and Specificity

Keywords

  • Diagnosis review
  • Overactive bladder
  • Urinary incontinence
  • Urodynamic tests

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Urology

Cite this

Are urodynamic tests useful tools for the initial conservative management of non-neurogenic urinary incontinence? A review of the literature. / Colli, Enrico; Artibani, Walter; Goka, John; Parazzini, Fabio; Wein, Alan J.

In: European Urology, Vol. 43, No. 1, 01.01.2003, p. 63-69.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{697405ee66b142e0bd1e4c0dbcb3b116,
title = "Are urodynamic tests useful tools for the initial conservative management of non-neurogenic urinary incontinence? A review of the literature",
abstract = "Objectives: To summarise the evidence for the role of urodynamic tests in the diagnosis and classification of urinary incontinence. Methods: Reference lists in relevant papers were reviewed and MEDLINE searches conducted. Results: The mean sensitivity (specificity) of clinical history versus urodynamic tests was 0.82 (0.57) for stress incontinence, 0.69 (0.60) for urge incontinence/overactive bladder, and 0.51 (0.66) for patients with mixed incontinence. The proportion of women with a clinical diagnosis of urinary incontinence but with normal findings from urodynamic tests ranged from 3 to 8{\%}. Overall sensitivity of urodynamic tests was about 85-90{\%} in the diagnosis of urodynamic stress incontinence, but generally lower following diagnosis of urge and mixed incontinence. No relationship emerged between urodynamic test results and response to medical treatment. Conclusions: This literature review shows that the sensitivity of clinical history versus urodynamic tests was 0.82, 0.69 and 0.51 respectively for stress, urge and mixed urinary incontinence. It also suggests that urodynamic diagnosis does not predict response to treatment. These data add to the ongoing 'urodynamics or no urodynamics' debate in the evaluation of urinary incontinence and show that urodynamic testing may not be helpful for patients receiving initial non-invasive therapy. These data are in line with the conclusions of the 1st and 2nd International Consultations on incontinence.",
keywords = "Diagnosis review, Overactive bladder, Urinary incontinence, Urodynamic tests",
author = "Enrico Colli and Walter Artibani and John Goka and Fabio Parazzini and Wein, {Alan J.}",
year = "2003",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/S0302-2838(02)00494-3",
language = "English",
volume = "43",
pages = "63--69",
journal = "European Urology",
issn = "0302-2838",
publisher = "Elsevier B.V.",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Are urodynamic tests useful tools for the initial conservative management of non-neurogenic urinary incontinence? A review of the literature

AU - Colli, Enrico

AU - Artibani, Walter

AU - Goka, John

AU - Parazzini, Fabio

AU - Wein, Alan J.

PY - 2003/1/1

Y1 - 2003/1/1

N2 - Objectives: To summarise the evidence for the role of urodynamic tests in the diagnosis and classification of urinary incontinence. Methods: Reference lists in relevant papers were reviewed and MEDLINE searches conducted. Results: The mean sensitivity (specificity) of clinical history versus urodynamic tests was 0.82 (0.57) for stress incontinence, 0.69 (0.60) for urge incontinence/overactive bladder, and 0.51 (0.66) for patients with mixed incontinence. The proportion of women with a clinical diagnosis of urinary incontinence but with normal findings from urodynamic tests ranged from 3 to 8%. Overall sensitivity of urodynamic tests was about 85-90% in the diagnosis of urodynamic stress incontinence, but generally lower following diagnosis of urge and mixed incontinence. No relationship emerged between urodynamic test results and response to medical treatment. Conclusions: This literature review shows that the sensitivity of clinical history versus urodynamic tests was 0.82, 0.69 and 0.51 respectively for stress, urge and mixed urinary incontinence. It also suggests that urodynamic diagnosis does not predict response to treatment. These data add to the ongoing 'urodynamics or no urodynamics' debate in the evaluation of urinary incontinence and show that urodynamic testing may not be helpful for patients receiving initial non-invasive therapy. These data are in line with the conclusions of the 1st and 2nd International Consultations on incontinence.

AB - Objectives: To summarise the evidence for the role of urodynamic tests in the diagnosis and classification of urinary incontinence. Methods: Reference lists in relevant papers were reviewed and MEDLINE searches conducted. Results: The mean sensitivity (specificity) of clinical history versus urodynamic tests was 0.82 (0.57) for stress incontinence, 0.69 (0.60) for urge incontinence/overactive bladder, and 0.51 (0.66) for patients with mixed incontinence. The proportion of women with a clinical diagnosis of urinary incontinence but with normal findings from urodynamic tests ranged from 3 to 8%. Overall sensitivity of urodynamic tests was about 85-90% in the diagnosis of urodynamic stress incontinence, but generally lower following diagnosis of urge and mixed incontinence. No relationship emerged between urodynamic test results and response to medical treatment. Conclusions: This literature review shows that the sensitivity of clinical history versus urodynamic tests was 0.82, 0.69 and 0.51 respectively for stress, urge and mixed urinary incontinence. It also suggests that urodynamic diagnosis does not predict response to treatment. These data add to the ongoing 'urodynamics or no urodynamics' debate in the evaluation of urinary incontinence and show that urodynamic testing may not be helpful for patients receiving initial non-invasive therapy. These data are in line with the conclusions of the 1st and 2nd International Consultations on incontinence.

KW - Diagnosis review

KW - Overactive bladder

KW - Urinary incontinence

KW - Urodynamic tests

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=12244284621&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=12244284621&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/S0302-2838(02)00494-3

DO - 10.1016/S0302-2838(02)00494-3

M3 - Article

VL - 43

SP - 63

EP - 69

JO - European Urology

JF - European Urology

SN - 0302-2838

IS - 1

ER -