ArticleUrology2021
Estimation of Urinary Frequency: Does Question Phrasing Matter?
Article in Urology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Accuracy in reporting incontinence in adults with spina bifida: A pilot study.Journal of pediatric urology · 2024Article
- Healthy bladder storage and emptying functions in community-dwelling women measured by a 2-day bladder health diary.Neurourology and urodynamics · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate if question phrasing and patient numeracy impact estimation of urinary frequency. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe conducted a prospective study looking at reliability of a patient interview in assessing urinary frequency. Prior to completing a voiding diary, patients estimated daytime, and nighttime frequency in 3 ways: (1) how many times they urinated (2) how many hours they waited in between urinations (3) how many times they urinated over the course of 4 hours. Numeracy was assessed using the Lipkus Numeracy Scale.
resultsSeventy-one patients completed the study. Correlation of estimates from questions 1, 2, and 3 to the diary were not statistically different. Prediction of nighttime frequency was better than daytime for all questions (correlation coefficients 0.751, 0.754, and 0.670 vs 0.596, 0.575, and 0.460). When compared to the diary, Question 1 underestimated (8.5 vs 9.7, P = .014) while Question 2 overestimated (11.8 vs 9.7, P = .027) recorded voids on a diary. All questions overpredicted nighttime frequency with 2.6, 2.9, and 3.9 predicted versus 1.6 recorded voids (P < .001). Although not statistically significant, for each question, the predicted frequency of numerate patients was more correlated to the diary than those of innumerate patients.
conclusionWhen compared to a voiding diary for daytime urinary frequency, asking patients how many times they urinated underestimated, and asking patients how many hours they waited between urinations overestimated the number recorded voids. Regardless of phrasing, patients overestimated nighttime urination. Patients in our functional urology population have limited numeracy, which may impact accuracy of urinary frequency estimation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33901531What 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.