English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Criteria for general practitioners to assess treatment efficacy are needed to efficiently treat urination problems in the elderly. Recently, criteria have been developed for urologists to assess the efficacy of benign prostatic hyperplasia treatment using the International Prostate Symptom Score (I-PSS), QoL index and maximal flow rates. We examined whether these criteria can be applied to the general urination problems of the elderly men and women, with 85 male and 16 female subjects aged 50 and over. Furthermore, we set Level I criteria using the I-PSS and QoL indices. Level II criteria using I-PSS, QoL index and post-void residual urine in addition to Level III criteria using I-PSS, QoL index and maximal urine flow rate. Correspondence rates among assessments by these criteria of treatment efficacy were investigated. Ninety-nine of 101 patients (98.0%) were assessed properly using the Level III criteria but the efficacy graded as "fair" and "unchanged" in Level III in each patient should be "poor" and "fair" in reality. Our findings suggest that Level III criteria should be useful for assessing the treatment efficacy of urination problems of elderly men and women besides benign prostatic hyperplasia. All of the patients, whose treatment efficacy was graded as "excellent" or "good", and those with efficacy graded as "unchanged" or "poor", according to the Level I criteria, were appropriately assessed by the Level III criteria. Of 35 patients whose treatment efficacy was graded as "fair" at Level I, the efficacy of 6 patients was graded as "unchanged" according to Level III. All of the patients, whose treatment efficacy was graded as "excellent" or "good", and those with efficacy graded as "poor", according to the Level II, were also appropriately assessed by the Level III criteria. However, the efficacy of 11 and 4 patients of 38 and 35 patients, respectively, whose efficacy was graded as "fair" and "unchanged" at Level II, was graded as "unchanged" and "fair" according to Level III, respectively. We believe that simple criteria including only I-PSS and QoL index are useful for general practitioners to assess treatment efficacy of urination problems in the elderly. It is suggested that patients with efficacy graded as "unchanged", or "poor" should be referred to a urologist but those with efficacy graded as "excellent", "good" and "fair" should be treated continuously. However, 17% of the patients with efficacy graded as "fair" by Level I criteria might be judged "unchanged" from the viewpoint of urologists.

Criteria for general practitioners to assess treatment efficacy for urination problems of the elderly