Neurourology and urodynamics · 2022
Pad test for urinary incontinence diagnosis in adults: Systematic review of diagnostic test accuracy.
СтатьяСистематический обзорНазвание 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.
Medeiros Araujo Camilla, de Morais Nívea Rosa, Sacomori Cinara, de Sousa Dantas Diego
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: The pad test is an assessment tool for urinary incontinence (UI) severity classification and therapeutic response monitoring. However, the reliability and reproducibility of this test have been questioned.
OBJECTIVES: To summarize the evidence regarding the accuracy measures and reproducibility of different pad test protocols for assessing UI.
METHODS: A systematic review of the diagnostic accuracy of this tool was performed (CRD42020219392).
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies reporting data on the accuracy measures and reproducibility of the pad test when used for detecting UI in adult men and women.
DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Science Direct, Cochrane, Web of Science, LILACS, and Pedro.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers independently screened the articles, extracted the data, and evaluated the risk of bias (RoB) using the QUADAS-2 tool.
RESULTS: From 1048 studies, 18 studies were included. Eight of these reported accuracy data, and 12 reported reproducibility properties. A total of 1070 individuals were analyzed, whose mean age ranged from 20 to 90 years. The accuracy of the long-duration protocols was generally moderate to high (sensitivity, 60%-93%; specificity, 60%-84%). The 1-h protocols obtained higher accuracy values. The overall reproducibility was moderate to high (κ ≥ 0.66).
LIMITATIONS: The RoB was high and, due to different cutoff points adopted by studies, the bivariate model was not satisfied to perform a meta-analysis.
DISCUSSION: The 1-h pad test was more accurate but less reproducible when compared to the long-duration tests. Pad test results should be used with caution in clinical practice.
OBJECTIVES: To summarize the evidence regarding the accuracy measures and reproducibility of different pad test protocols for assessing UI.
METHODS: A systematic review of the diagnostic accuracy of this tool was performed (CRD42020219392).
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies reporting data on the accuracy measures and reproducibility of the pad test when used for detecting UI in adult men and women.
DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Science Direct, Cochrane, Web of Science, LILACS, and Pedro.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers independently screened the articles, extracted the data, and evaluated the risk of bias (RoB) using the QUADAS-2 tool.
RESULTS: From 1048 studies, 18 studies were included. Eight of these reported accuracy data, and 12 reported reproducibility properties. A total of 1070 individuals were analyzed, whose mean age ranged from 20 to 90 years. The accuracy of the long-duration protocols was generally moderate to high (sensitivity, 60%-93%; specificity, 60%-84%). The 1-h protocols obtained higher accuracy values. The overall reproducibility was moderate to high (κ ≥ 0.66).
LIMITATIONS: The RoB was high and, due to different cutoff points adopted by studies, the bivariate model was not satisfied to perform a meta-analysis.
DISCUSSION: The 1-h pad test was more accurate but less reproducible when compared to the long-duration tests. Pad test results should be used with caution in clinical practice.