Trial reportInternational urogynecology journal2016
Clinical validation of the Bladder Health Survey for urinary incontinence in a population sample of women.
Trial report in International urogynecology journal, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A systematic review of English language patient-reported outcome measures for use in urogynaecology and female pelvic medicine.International urogynecology journal · 2021Pooled it
- Genome-Wide Associations with Urinary Incontinence in Women: Case-Control Study.International urogynecology journal · 2025Article
- Does transition of urinary incontinence from one subtype to another represent progression of the disease?International urogynecology journal · 2018Article
- Mixed Incontinence Masked as Stress Induced Urgency Urinary Incontinence.The Journal of urology · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisOur aim was to clinically validate the Bladder Health Survey (BHS) for detecting urinary incontinence (UI) in population-based surveys.
methodsA random sample of women ≥40 years was recruited from primary care practices. We assessed the BHS content validity with an expert advisory board. Test-retest reliability of UI questions was measured. BHS UI definitions included noncases, active (more than three symptoms in the prior 6 months), inactive (past but no current symptoms), and incident (new onset over the past 2 years) cases. To assess criterion validity, we compared BHS diagnosis to an expert clinical diagnosis using structured history, pelvic exam, voiding diary, and urodynamics (if needed). Construct validity was assessed comparing the BHS UI score and case status to Sandvik's score.
resultsAmong 322 patients, the BHS identified 17 % as noncases, 70 % as active, 10 % as inactive, and 3 % as incident cases. Using the clinical diagnosis as the gold standard, the percent of true-positive UI cases was 98 % (active), 84 % (inactive), and 80 % (incident). A total of 75 % of BHS noncases were true negatives. The receiver operating characteristic c-statistic was 0.86. Sensitivity and specificity of the BHS were 91 % and 84 %, respectively. The Sandvik score for active cases (median = 4) was significantly greater than it was for inactive (median = 1), incident (median = 1), and noncases (median = 0) (p < 0.001). The BHS UI score was significantly correlated with the Sandvik severity score (r = 0.68, p < 0.01).
conclusionThe BHS is highly reliable, with robust content and construct validity for detecting UI for use in population samples.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26386565What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.