Screening for Urinary Incontinence in Women: A systematic review for the Women's Preventive Services Initiative

Heidi Nelson, Amy Cantor, Miranda Pappas, Liev Miller

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Urinary incontinence is infrequently addressed during routine health care despite its high prevalence and adverse effects on health. Purpose: To evaluate whether screening for urinary incontinence in women not previously diagnosed improves outcomes (symptoms, quality of life, and function) and to evaluate the accuracy of screening methods and potential harms of screening. Data Sources: English-language searches of Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (1 January 1996 to 30 March 2018); ClinicalTrials.gov (April 2018); and reference lists of studies and reviews. Study Selection: Randomized trials, cohort studies, systematic reviews of studies that enrolled nonpregnant women without previously diagnosed urinary incontinence and compared clinical outcomes and adverse effects between women who were and were not screened, and diagnostic accuracy studies that reported performance measures of screening tests. Data Extraction: Dual extraction and quality assessment of individual studies. Data Synthesis: No studies evaluated the overall effectiveness or harms of screening. Seventeen studies evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of 18 screening questionnaires against a clinical diagnosis or results of diagnostic tests. Of these, 14 poor-quality studies were based in referral clinics, enrolled only symptomatic women, or had other limitations. One good-quality and 2 fair-quality studies (evaluating 4 methods) enrolled women not recruited on the basis of symptoms. Areas under the receiver-operating characteristic curve for stress, urge, and any type of incontinence in these studies were 0.79, 0.88, and 0.88 for the Michigan Incontinence Symptom Index; 0.85, 0.83, and 0.87 for the Bladder Control Self-Assessment Questionnaire; and 0.68, 0.82, and 0.75 for the Overactive Bladder Awareness Tool. The Incontinence Screening Questionnaire had a sensitivity of 66% and specificity of 80% for any type of incontinence. Limitation: Studies enrolled few participants, often from symptomatic referral populations; used various reference standards; and infrequently reported CIs. Conclusion: Evidence is insufficient on the overall effectiveness and harms of screening for urinary incontinence in women. Limited evidence in general populations suggests fairly high accuracy for some screening methods.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)311-319
Number of pages9
JournalAnnals of Internal Medicine
Volume169
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 4 2018

Fingerprint

Urinary Incontinence
Referral and Consultation
Urge Urinary Incontinence
Overactive Urinary Bladder
Information Storage and Retrieval
Routine Diagnostic Tests
MEDLINE
ROC Curve
Population
Urinary Bladder
Cohort Studies
Language
Quality of Life
Databases
Delivery of Health Care
Sensitivity and Specificity
Health
Surveys and Questionnaires

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Internal Medicine

Cite this

Screening for Urinary Incontinence in Women : A systematic review for the Women's Preventive Services Initiative. / Nelson, Heidi; Cantor, Amy; Pappas, Miranda; Miller, Liev.

In: Annals of Internal Medicine, Vol. 169, No. 5, 04.09.2018, p. 311-319.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{75cd9c0fba8f4d39b360246f44c41656,
title = "Screening for Urinary Incontinence in Women: A systematic review for the Women's Preventive Services Initiative",
abstract = "Background: Urinary incontinence is infrequently addressed during routine health care despite its high prevalence and adverse effects on health. Purpose: To evaluate whether screening for urinary incontinence in women not previously diagnosed improves outcomes (symptoms, quality of life, and function) and to evaluate the accuracy of screening methods and potential harms of screening. Data Sources: English-language searches of Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (1 January 1996 to 30 March 2018); ClinicalTrials.gov (April 2018); and reference lists of studies and reviews. Study Selection: Randomized trials, cohort studies, systematic reviews of studies that enrolled nonpregnant women without previously diagnosed urinary incontinence and compared clinical outcomes and adverse effects between women who were and were not screened, and diagnostic accuracy studies that reported performance measures of screening tests. Data Extraction: Dual extraction and quality assessment of individual studies. Data Synthesis: No studies evaluated the overall effectiveness or harms of screening. Seventeen studies evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of 18 screening questionnaires against a clinical diagnosis or results of diagnostic tests. Of these, 14 poor-quality studies were based in referral clinics, enrolled only symptomatic women, or had other limitations. One good-quality and 2 fair-quality studies (evaluating 4 methods) enrolled women not recruited on the basis of symptoms. Areas under the receiver-operating characteristic curve for stress, urge, and any type of incontinence in these studies were 0.79, 0.88, and 0.88 for the Michigan Incontinence Symptom Index; 0.85, 0.83, and 0.87 for the Bladder Control Self-Assessment Questionnaire; and 0.68, 0.82, and 0.75 for the Overactive Bladder Awareness Tool. The Incontinence Screening Questionnaire had a sensitivity of 66{\%} and specificity of 80{\%} for any type of incontinence. Limitation: Studies enrolled few participants, often from symptomatic referral populations; used various reference standards; and infrequently reported CIs. Conclusion: Evidence is insufficient on the overall effectiveness and harms of screening for urinary incontinence in women. Limited evidence in general populations suggests fairly high accuracy for some screening methods.",
author = "Heidi Nelson and Amy Cantor and Miranda Pappas and Liev Miller",
year = "2018",
month = "9",
day = "4",
doi = "10.7326/M18-0225",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "169",
pages = "311--319",
journal = "Annals of Internal Medicine",
issn = "0003-4819",
publisher = "American College of Physicians",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Screening for Urinary Incontinence in Women

T2 - A systematic review for the Women's Preventive Services Initiative

AU - Nelson, Heidi

AU - Cantor, Amy

AU - Pappas, Miranda

AU - Miller, Liev

PY - 2018/9/4

Y1 - 2018/9/4

N2 - Background: Urinary incontinence is infrequently addressed during routine health care despite its high prevalence and adverse effects on health. Purpose: To evaluate whether screening for urinary incontinence in women not previously diagnosed improves outcomes (symptoms, quality of life, and function) and to evaluate the accuracy of screening methods and potential harms of screening. Data Sources: English-language searches of Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (1 January 1996 to 30 March 2018); ClinicalTrials.gov (April 2018); and reference lists of studies and reviews. Study Selection: Randomized trials, cohort studies, systematic reviews of studies that enrolled nonpregnant women without previously diagnosed urinary incontinence and compared clinical outcomes and adverse effects between women who were and were not screened, and diagnostic accuracy studies that reported performance measures of screening tests. Data Extraction: Dual extraction and quality assessment of individual studies. Data Synthesis: No studies evaluated the overall effectiveness or harms of screening. Seventeen studies evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of 18 screening questionnaires against a clinical diagnosis or results of diagnostic tests. Of these, 14 poor-quality studies were based in referral clinics, enrolled only symptomatic women, or had other limitations. One good-quality and 2 fair-quality studies (evaluating 4 methods) enrolled women not recruited on the basis of symptoms. Areas under the receiver-operating characteristic curve for stress, urge, and any type of incontinence in these studies were 0.79, 0.88, and 0.88 for the Michigan Incontinence Symptom Index; 0.85, 0.83, and 0.87 for the Bladder Control Self-Assessment Questionnaire; and 0.68, 0.82, and 0.75 for the Overactive Bladder Awareness Tool. The Incontinence Screening Questionnaire had a sensitivity of 66% and specificity of 80% for any type of incontinence. Limitation: Studies enrolled few participants, often from symptomatic referral populations; used various reference standards; and infrequently reported CIs. Conclusion: Evidence is insufficient on the overall effectiveness and harms of screening for urinary incontinence in women. Limited evidence in general populations suggests fairly high accuracy for some screening methods.

AB - Background: Urinary incontinence is infrequently addressed during routine health care despite its high prevalence and adverse effects on health. Purpose: To evaluate whether screening for urinary incontinence in women not previously diagnosed improves outcomes (symptoms, quality of life, and function) and to evaluate the accuracy of screening methods and potential harms of screening. Data Sources: English-language searches of Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (1 January 1996 to 30 March 2018); ClinicalTrials.gov (April 2018); and reference lists of studies and reviews. Study Selection: Randomized trials, cohort studies, systematic reviews of studies that enrolled nonpregnant women without previously diagnosed urinary incontinence and compared clinical outcomes and adverse effects between women who were and were not screened, and diagnostic accuracy studies that reported performance measures of screening tests. Data Extraction: Dual extraction and quality assessment of individual studies. Data Synthesis: No studies evaluated the overall effectiveness or harms of screening. Seventeen studies evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of 18 screening questionnaires against a clinical diagnosis or results of diagnostic tests. Of these, 14 poor-quality studies were based in referral clinics, enrolled only symptomatic women, or had other limitations. One good-quality and 2 fair-quality studies (evaluating 4 methods) enrolled women not recruited on the basis of symptoms. Areas under the receiver-operating characteristic curve for stress, urge, and any type of incontinence in these studies were 0.79, 0.88, and 0.88 for the Michigan Incontinence Symptom Index; 0.85, 0.83, and 0.87 for the Bladder Control Self-Assessment Questionnaire; and 0.68, 0.82, and 0.75 for the Overactive Bladder Awareness Tool. The Incontinence Screening Questionnaire had a sensitivity of 66% and specificity of 80% for any type of incontinence. Limitation: Studies enrolled few participants, often from symptomatic referral populations; used various reference standards; and infrequently reported CIs. Conclusion: Evidence is insufficient on the overall effectiveness and harms of screening for urinary incontinence in women. Limited evidence in general populations suggests fairly high accuracy for some screening methods.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85052879742&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85052879742&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.7326/M18-0225

DO - 10.7326/M18-0225

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85052879742

VL - 169

SP - 311

EP - 319

JO - Annals of Internal Medicine

JF - Annals of Internal Medicine

SN - 0003-4819

IS - 5

ER -