Premium
The responsiveness of the ICS male questionnaire to outcome: evidence from the ICS‐‘BPH’ study
Author(s) -
Jenny Donovan,
Sara Brookes,
J.J.M.H.C. de la Rosette,
Tim J. Peters,
Daniele Porru,
Akihito Kondo,
N.F. Dabhoiwala,
R. J. Millard,
J.L.H. Ruud Bosch,
Jørgen Nordling,
A. Matos Ferreira,
K. Höfner,
Hugh Mostafid,
Steen Walter,
I Nissenkorn,
Carl Möller,
M. Mendes Silva,
Christopher Chapple,
Paul Abrams
Publication year - 1999
Publication title -
bju international
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.773
H-Index - 148
eISSN - 1464-410X
pISSN - 1464-4096
DOI - 10.1046/j.1464-410x.1999.00930.x
Subject(s) - medicine , watchful waiting , lower urinary tract symptoms , international prostate symptom score , urology , bladder outlet obstruction , benign prostatic hyperplasia (bph) , prostatectomy , prostate , prostate cancer , cancer
Objective To evaluate the responsiveness of the ICS male questionnaire to the outcome of treatments for lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS). Patients and methods Consecutive men aged >45 years attending 23 urology centres in 12 countries, with symptoms suggestive of bladder outlet obstruction secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), were recruited to Phase I of the International Continence Society (ICS)‐‘BPH’ study. In Phase II of the ICS‐‘BPH’ study, 355 men in 15 centres in nine countries were followed up, having proceeded to treatment according to clinical practice. All men completed the ICS‐‘BPH’ study questionnaire at baseline and follow‐up, including the ICS male which concerns LUTS and related problems. Results Patients included in Phase II were similar to those in Phase I according to age and levels of baseline symptoms. Patients received a range of treatments: 32% TURP, 29% drug therapies, 20% watchful waiting, 9% minimally invasive therapies and 10%‘others’ (including open prostatectomy). For patients who underwent TURP, most LUTS, including voiding and filling symptoms, were highly statistically significantly better at follow‐up than at baseline ( P <0.0001). For drug, minimally invasive and ‘other’ treatments, fewer LUTS were highly statistically significantly better. For those undergoing watchful waiting, no symptoms were significantly different between baseline and follow‐up. Conclusion The ICS male questionnaire, in addition to being psychometrically valid and reliable, is responsive to change in outcome.