Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Review Article
  • Published:

Primer: questionnaires versus urodynamics in the evaluation of lower urinary tract dysfunction—one, both or none?

Nature Clinical Practice Urology volume 2, pages 555–564 (2005)Cite this article

Abstract

What is the role of urodynamic assessments and have we made too much use of them? Is there a correlation between symptoms and underlying pathophysiology? These questions are addressed in this article. There are disparities in the assessment of lower urinary tract dysfunction between the accuracy of symptomatic assessment and the underlying pathophysiology. This is particularly evident with voiding symptoms, in contrast to storage symptoms, and has fuelled the debates that have resulted in the abandonment of the term 'prostatism' in favor of 'lower urinary tract symptoms', whereas the term 'overactive bladder syndrome' has been embraced as a storage symptom complex. Clearly, voiding disorders principally affect men, whilst storage disorders are more common in women. Much has been written and spoken about regarding the use of symptomatic assessment versus urodynamics in the assessment of lower urinary tract symptoms in men, whilst there has been a clearer consensus on the potential usefulness of urodynamics in the assessment of storage disorders, and so this article focuses principally on the latter topic.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bosch JLHR et al. (1995) The international prostate symptom score in a community sample of men between 55 and 74 years of age: prevalence and correlation of symptoms with age, prostate volume, flow rate and residual urine volume. Br J Urol 75: 622–630

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. McConnell JD et al. (2003) The long-term effect of doxazosin, finasteride and combination therapy on the clinical progression of benign prostatic hyperplasia. N Engl J Med 349: 2387–2398

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Lepor H and Machi G (1993) Comparison of AUA symptom index in unselected males and females between fifty-five and seventy-nine years of age. Urology 42: 36–40

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Yu HJ et al. (1998) High prevalence of voiding symptoms in Taiwanese women. Br J Urol 82: 520–523

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Roberts RO et al. (1998) Natural history of prostatism: high American Urological Association symptom scores among community-dwelling men and women with urinary incontinence. Urology 51: 213–219

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Madersbacher S et al. (1999) The International Prostate Symptom score in both sexes: a urodynamics-based comparison. Neurourol Urod 18: 173–182

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Donovan J et al. (2005) Symptom and quality of life assessment. In Incontinence: 3rd International Consultation on Incontinence, 519–584 (Eds Abrams P et al.) Plymouth: Health Publications Ltd

    Google Scholar 

  8. de la Rosette JJ et al. (1998) Relationships between lower urinary tract symptoms and bladder outlet obstruction: results from the 'ICS-BPH' study. Neurourol Urodyn 17: 99–108

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Abrams P et al. (2001) Recommendations of the 5th International Consultation on Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia. Plymouth: Health Publications Ltd

    Google Scholar 

  10. Neal DE et al. (1989) Outcome of elective prostatectomy. BMJ 299: 762–767

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Griffiths D et al. (1997) Standardization of terminology of lower urinary tract function: pressure–flow studies of voiding, urethral resistance, and urethral obstruction. International Continence Society Subcommittee on Standardization of Terminology of Pressure-Flow Studies. Neurourol Urodyn 16: 1–18

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Farrar DJ et al. (1975) A urodynamic view of bladder outflow obstruction in the female: factors influencing the results of treatment. Br J Urol 47: 815–822

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Massey JA and Abrams PH (1988) Obstructed voiding in the female. Br J Urol 61: 36–39

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Chassagne S et al. (1998) Proposed cutoff values to define bladder outlet obstruction in women. Urology 51: 408–411

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Lemack GE and Zimmern PE . (2000) Identifying patients who require urodynamic testing before surgery for stress incontinence based on questionnaire information and surgical history. Urology 55: 506–511

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Blaivas JG and Groutz A (2000) Bladder outlet obstruction nomogram for women with lower urinary tract symptomatology. Neurourol Urodyn 19: 553–564

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Cormier L et al. (2002) Diagnosis of female bladder outlet obstruction and relevance of the parameter area under the curve of detrusor pressure during voiding: preliminary results. J Urol 167: 2083–2087

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Kranse R and van Mastrigt R (2002) Relative bladder outlet obstruction. J Urol 168: 565–570

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Sander P et al. (2002) Should measurement of maximum urinary flow rate and residual urine volume be a part of a “minimal care” assessment programme in female incontinence? Scand J Urol Nephrol 36: 124–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Abrams P et al. (2002) The standardisation of terminology of lower urinary tract function: report from the Standardisation Subcommittee of the International Continence Society. Neurourol Urodyn 21: 167–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Jung SY et al. (1999) Urethral afferent nerve activity affects the micturition reflex; implication for the relationship between stress incontinence and detrusor instability. J Urol 162: 204–212

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Cardozo LD and Stanton SL (1980) Genuine stress incontinence and detrusor instability—a review of 200 patients. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 87: 184–190

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Kelleher CJ et al. (1997) A new questionnaire to assess the quality of life of urinary incontinent women. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 104: 1374–1379

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Jackson S et al. (1996) The Bristol Female Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms questionnaire: development and psychometric testing. Br J Urol 77: 805–812

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Amarenco G et al. (2003) European psychometric validation of the CONTILIFE: a quality of life questionnaire for urinary incontinence. Eur Urol 43: 391–404

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Brink CA et al. (1994) A digital test for pelvic muscle strength in women with urinary incontinence. Nurs Res 43: 352–356

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Bump RC et al. (1996) The standardization of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 175: 10–17

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Baden W and Walker T (1992) Fundamentals, symptoms, and classification. In Surgical Repair of Vaginal Defects, 9–24 (Eds Baden W and Walker T) Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

    Google Scholar 

  29. Crystle CD et al. (1971) Q-tip test in stress urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol 38: 313–315

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Fink D et al. (1999) The role of the frequency-volume chart in the differential diagnostic of female urinary incontinence. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 78: 254–257

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. McLennan MT and Bent AE (1998) Supine empty stress test as a predictor of low Valsalva leak point pressure. Neurourol Urodyn 17: 121–127

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Hsu TH et al. (1999) The supine stress test: a simple method to detect intrinsic urethral sphincter dysfunction. J Urol 162: 460–463

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Swift SE and Yoon EA (1999) Test-retest reliability of the cough stress test in the evaluation of urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol 94: 99–102

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Soroka D et al. (2002) Perineal pad test in evaluating outcome of treatments for female incontinence: a systematic review. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 13: 165–175

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Versi E and Cardozo LD (1986) Perineal pad weighing versus videographic analysis in genuine stress incontinence. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 93: 364–366

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Lose G et al. (1989) 24-hour home pad weighing test versus 1-hour ward test in the assessment of mild stress incontinence. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 68: 211–215

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Siltberg H et al. (1997) Pad weighing tests: the best way to quantify urine loss in patients with incontinence. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 166 (Suppl): 28–32

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Victor A (1990) Pad weighing test—a simple method to quantitate urinary incontinence. Ann Med 22: 443–447

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Abrams PH et al. (1988) The standardisation of terminology of lower urinary tract function. The International Continence Society Committee on Standardisation of Terminology. Scand J Urol Nephrol 114 (Suppl): 5–19

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Homma Y et al. (2002) Urodynamics. In Incontinence: 2nd International Consultation on Incontinence, 319–372 (Eds Abrams P et al.) Plymouth: Health Publications Ltd

    Google Scholar 

  41. Petrou SP and Broderick GA (2002) Valsalva leak-point pressure changes after successful and failed suburethral sling. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 13: 299–302

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Griffiths D (1985) The pressure within a collapsed tube, with special reference to urethral pressure. Phys Med Biol 30: 951–963

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Lose G et al. (2002) Standardisation of urethral pressure measurement: report from the Standardisation Subcommittee of the International Continence Society. Neurourol Urodyn 21: 258–260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Versi E (1990) Discriminant analysis of urethral pressure profilometry data for the diagnosis of genuine stress incontinence. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 97: 251–259

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Lose G (1997) Urethral pressure measurement. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 166 (Suppl): 39–42

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Kim KJ et al. (1997) The vesico-urethral pressuregram analysis of urethral function under stress. J Biomech 30: 19–25

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Thind P et al. (1991) Method for evaluation of the urethral closure mechanism in women during standardised changes of cross-sectional area. Clin Phys Physiol Meas 12: 163–170

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Weber AM (2001) Is urethral pressure profilometry a useful diagnostic test for stress urinary incontinence? Obstet Gynecol Surv 56: 720–735

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Arbitani W et al. (2002) Imaging and other investigations. In Incontinence: 2nd International Consultation on Incontinence, 427–477 (Eds Abrams P et al.) Plymouth: Health Publications Ltd

    Google Scholar 

  50. Versi E et al. (1998) Videourodynamic diagnosis of occult genuine stress incontinence in patients with anterior vaginal wall relaxation. J Soc Gynecol Investig 5: 327–330

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Glazener CM and Lapitan MC (2002) Urodynamic investigations for management of urinary incontinence in adults. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Issue 3, Art. No CD003195

    Google Scholar 

  52. Weber AM et al. (2002) The cost-effectiveness of preoperative testing (basic office assessment vs urodynamics) for stress urinary incontinence in women. BJU Int 89: 356–363

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. James M et al. (1999) Pure stress leakage symptomatology: is it safe to discount detrusor instability? Br J Obstet Gynecol 106: 1255–1258

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Lemack GE and Zimmern PE (1999) Predictability of urodynamic findings based on the Urogenital Distress Inventory-6 questionnaire. Urology 54: 461–466

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Lemack GE and Zimmern PE (2000) Pressure flow analysis may aid in identifying women with outflow obstruction. J Urol 163: 1823–1828

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. FitzGerald MP and Brubaker L (2002) Urinary incontinence symptom scores and urodynamic diagnoses. Neurourol Urodyn 21: 30–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Flesh G (2002) Predictive value of clinical evaluation of stress urinary incontinence: a summary of the published literature. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 13: 57–58

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Videla FL and Wall LL (1998) Stress incontinence diagnosed without multichannel urodynamic studies. Obstet Gynecol 91: 965–968

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Diokno AC et al. (1999) Office based criteria for predicting type II stress incontinence without further evaluation studies. J Urol 161: 1263–1267

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Consultant Urological Surgeon at the Royal Hallamshire Hospital, UK

    Christopher R Chapple

Authors
  1. Christopher R Chapple
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christopher R Chapple.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The author declares no competing financial interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Chapple, C. Primer: questionnaires versus urodynamics in the evaluation of lower urinary tract dysfunction—one, both or none?. Nat Rev Urol 2, 555–564 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1038/ncpuro0339

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ncpuro0339

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing