Relationship between urinary incontinence symptoms and urodynamic findings using a validated Arabic questionnaire.

BACKGROUND

Urinary incontinence is common, particularly in women. Urodynamic studies (UDS) can accurately assess the condition. Less invasive objective measuring tools correlate with urodynamic findings, but the Arabic version of the Urogenital Distress Inventory-6 (UDI-6) questionnaire has not been previously correlated with UDS in Arabian patients.

OBJECTIVE

To correlate the Arabic version of the UDI-6 with urodynamic findings in Arabian women with urinary incontinence.

DESIGN

Prospective.

SETTING

Tertiary referral urology clinic.

PATIENTS AND

METHODS

All female patients presenting with urinary incontinence between July 2013 to March 2014. Patients answered the Arabic UDI-6 questionnaire and underwent a history and clinical examination, urine culture and UDS.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Correlation between Arabic UDI-6 questionnaire score and urodynamic diagnosis.

RESULTS

Eighty-seven women with a mean age of 57 (range, 22-72) years completed the UDI-6 and underwent UDS. The questionnaire revealed that 20 (23%) patients had urge incontinence, 28 (32%) had stress incontinence and 39 (45%) had mixed incontinence. As diagnosed by UDS, 26 (30%) had urge incontinence, 37 (42%) had stress incontinence, 16 (18%) had mixed incontinence and 8 (9%) had no abnormality. Eighty-six percent of patients (24/28) with pure stress urinary incontinence (SUI) symptoms had a positive UDS, and 55% (11/20) of patients with pure urge incontinence symptoms had a positive UDS. Of all patients with positiveresponse to the question for SUI, 53/67, 79% had positive UDS diagnosis with a correlation coefficient of 0.65 (P < .01). Of all patients with positive responses for urge incontinence, 27/59, 45.8% had positive UDS diagnosis with a moderate correlation coefficient of 0.38 (P < .01).

CONCLUSIONS

The validated Arabic UDI-6 correlates significantly with UDS findings in Arabian women, particularly in women with SUI.

LIMITATIONS: The sample size was relatively small, which prevented sub-analyses. Patient comorbidities were not evaluated.