International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2000
The urinary incontinence score in the diagnosis of female urinary incontinence.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ishiko O, Hirai K, Sumi T, Nishimura S, Ogita S
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Our purpose was to determine whether the urinary incontinence (UI) score is significantly useful in evaluating the clinical status of UI.
METHOD: The questionnaire was administered to 198 UI patients (27-73 years of age) diagnosed by conventional procedures. It consisted of 15 questions, and the answers were assigned points divided into a stress score (s-s) and urge score (u-s) according to severity.
RESULTS: The patients were classified into a stress incontinence group (SI; 125 cases), urge incontinence group (URI; 29 cases), mixed incontinence group (MI; 41 cases), and overflow incontinence group (3 cases). Classification by questionnaire yielded 110 SI cases, 31 URI cases, and 46 MI cases, accuracy of 83.2%, 86.2%, and 61.0%, respectively. A significant correlation was observed with s-s of SI (r = 0.669, P < 0.001) and u-s of URI (r = 0.583, P < 0.005).
CONCLUSION: The UI score will be a simple, clinically effective diagnostic procedure for UI for use by general gynecologists.
METHOD: The questionnaire was administered to 198 UI patients (27-73 years of age) diagnosed by conventional procedures. It consisted of 15 questions, and the answers were assigned points divided into a stress score (s-s) and urge score (u-s) according to severity.
RESULTS: The patients were classified into a stress incontinence group (SI; 125 cases), urge incontinence group (URI; 29 cases), mixed incontinence group (MI; 41 cases), and overflow incontinence group (3 cases). Classification by questionnaire yielded 110 SI cases, 31 URI cases, and 46 MI cases, accuracy of 83.2%, 86.2%, and 61.0%, respectively. A significant correlation was observed with s-s of SI (r = 0.669, P < 0.001) and u-s of URI (r = 0.583, P < 0.005).
CONCLUSION: The UI score will be a simple, clinically effective diagnostic procedure for UI for use by general gynecologists.