ArticleTurkish journal of obstetrics and gynecology2025
Which urinary incontinence inquiry form should be used in women with urinary incontinence?
Article in Turkish journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To determine urinary incontinence (UI) inquiry forms to be used in the follow-up of incontinence according to UI type. Materials and Methods: This prospective cohort study was conducted at the University of Health Science Hospital between 2020 and 2022. A total of 449 patients referred for urodynamic evaluation for UI were included herein, and clinical results regarding UI types were collected and reviewed. The validated urogenital distress inventory 6 (UDI-6), incontinence impact questionnaire (IIQ-7), and incontinence quality of life (I-QOL) questionnaires were completed by all patients. The demographic data of the patients, total questionnaire scores, and urodynamic results were compared between the groups according to UI type. Results: Forty-nine percent of the participants were in the menopausal period, and 41% required regular ped use. A total of 52.1% of patients experienced 5 years of UI. Stress incontinence was reported in 4.2% of patients, urge incontinence in 10%, stress-predominant mixed UI in 59.2%, and urge-predominant mixed UI in 24.7%. The mean ± standard deviation values were 59.62±20.62 for the UDI-6, 54.72±24.84 for the IIQ-7, 62.41±23.52 for the total I-QOL, 21.85±8.55 for the I-QOL limitation of behaviors subscale, 27.99±10.86 for the I-QOL psychological influence subscale, and 12.64±5.72 for the I-QOL social isolation subscale. A statistically significant difference was assessed between the urodynamics results and the UDI-6, IIQ-7, total I-QOL, I-QOL limitation of behaviors subscale, I-QOL psychological influence subscale, and I-QOL social isolation subscale scores (p<0.001 for all variables). Conclusion: In patients diagnosed with UI, when each of the 3 questionnaires for UI diagnosis was compared, the best inquiry questionnaire for the prediction of mixed-type UI was the UDI-6.
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.