Trial reportThe Journal of urology2019
Can 7 or 30-Day Recall Questions Capture Self-Reported Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Accurately?
Trial report in The Journal of urology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of weekly and daily recall of pain as an endpoint in a randomized phase 3 trial of cabozantinib for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2021Trial
- Symptoms and subtypes of patients with lower urinary tract dysfunction - insights from the Symptoms of Lower Urinary Tract Dysfunction Research Network.Nature reviews. Urology · 2026Review
- Dutch Translation, Cultural Adaption, and Validation of the German Pelvic Floor Questionnaire for Pregnant and Postpartum Women.International urogynecology journal · 2025Article
- Lack of group-to-individual generalizability in people with lower urinary tract symptoms emphasizes the need for deep phenotyping and personalized treatments.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2025Article
- Accuracy of patient-reported bowel symptoms for fecal incontinence: Historical recall versus prospective evaluation.Neurogastroenterology and motility · 2024Article
- A comparison of brief versus explicit descriptors for verbal rating scales: interrupted time series design.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2023Article
- Comparing estimates of psychological distress using 7-day and 30-day recall periods: Does it make a difference?PloS one · 2023Article
- Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms in Depression: A Review.Health psychology research · 2023Article
- Comparing clinical bladder diaries and recalled patient reports for measuring lower urinary tract symptoms in the symptoms of Lower Urinary Tract Dysfunction Research Network (LURN).Neurourology and urodynamics · 2022Article
- AUGS-PERFORM: A New Patient-Reported Outcome Measure to Assess Quality of Prolapse Care.Female pelvic medicine & reconstructive surgery · 2022Article
- Analyzing and Characterizing Why Men Seek Care for Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms.Current urology reports · 2020Review
- Patient demographic and psychosocial characteristics associated with 30-day recall of self-reported lower urinary tract symptoms.Neurourology and urodynamics · 2020Article
- Involvement of personal and professional relations among men bothered by lower urinary tract symptoms: a population-based cross-sectional study.BMC public health · 2020Article
- PERSONAL: Feasibility Study Protocol for Placebo-Controlled, Randomized n-of-1 Trials of Tamsulosin for Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms.Frontiers in digital health · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeSelf-reported measurement tools often provide a recall period, eg "In the past 7 days…" For lower urinary tract symptoms the concordance of end of day (daily) reports with 7 and 30-day recalled reports is unknown to our knowledge. We evaluated how accurately 7 or 30-day recall questions capture lower urinary tract symptoms. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe 261 female and 254 male participants were recruited from a total of 6 United States tertiary care sites. We evaluated 18 items representing 7 symptoms covering storage, voiding and post-micturition symptoms. Item responses on the daily forms were averaged for a 7 or a 30-day period and compared to the corresponding 7 or 30-day recall version of the item. Analyses were item and gender specific. Within person concordance was assessed using the Pearson correlation. Bias (systematic overreporting or underreporting) was calculated as the difference between the recalled item and the averaged daily item score, and reported as a percent of the item scale.
resultsAll correlations exceeded 0.60. Correlations between averaged daily reports and recalled reports ranged from 0.72 to 0.89 for 7 days and from 0.71 to 0.91 for 30 days among women, and from 0.68 to 0.90 and 0.68 to 0.95, respectively, among men. Most items did not show systematic bias and the median percent bias did not exceed 10% for any item. However, bias exceeding ±10% for some items was observed in a subset of individuals.
conclusionsRecalled reports during the 7 and 30 days tracked well with averaged daily reports for men and women. Systematic bias was minimal, suggesting that 7 and 30-day recall periods for self-reported lower urinary tract symptoms are reasonable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.