Minimum important difference of the ICIQ-UI SF score after self-management of urinary incontinence.
ICIQ-UISF
Mobile app
PGI-I; minimum important difference
Pelvic floor muscle training
Urinary incontinence
Journal
BMC women's health
ISSN: 1472-6874
Titre abrégé: BMC Womens Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088690
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
14 Feb 2024
14 Feb 2024
Historique:
received:
28
03
2023
accepted:
01
02
2024
medline:
15
2
2024
pubmed:
15
2
2024
entrez:
14
2
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
This study aimed to evaluate clinically relevant improvement after conservative self-management of urinary incontinence via a mobile app. It further aimed to establish Minimum Important Differences (MIDs) based on the severity and type of urinary incontinence. Data was collected in a prospective cohort study that evaluated the freely available app Tät®. The app provided pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) and life-style advice. Non-pregnant, non-postpartum women (≥ 18 years) who downloaded the app to treat urinary incontinence were included, if they completed the Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) question at the 3-month follow-up (n = 1,733). Participants answered the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire (ICIQ-UI SF) at baseline and after 3 months. The score change was analysed for correlation (Spearman) with the PGI-I. We then analysed one-way ANOVAs to determine whether there were significant differences between the groups based on the answers to the PGI-I. The MID was set to the mean change of the group that selected the answer "a little better" to the PGI-I question. The one-way ANOVA showed significant differences between PGI-I groups (p < 0.001). The MID for the general group was set to 1.46 (95% Confidence Interval [CI] 1.26-1.67). In the sub-group analyses, a MID for the group with slight incontinence could not be determined. For the group with moderate severity the MID was determined to be 1.33 (95% CI 1.10-1.57) and for the severe/very severe group it was 3.58 (95% CI 3.08-4.09). Analysis of different types of incontinence showed no difference in MIDs. The MID for self-management via a mobile app was lower than previously established MIDs, but differed depending on baseline severity. This study shows that MIDs need adjustment for baseline severity and treatment intensity when interpreting clinical trial results. If using MIDs as exact numbers, the study population and the treatment must be comparable.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
This study aimed to evaluate clinically relevant improvement after conservative self-management of urinary incontinence via a mobile app. It further aimed to establish Minimum Important Differences (MIDs) based on the severity and type of urinary incontinence.
METHODS
METHODS
Data was collected in a prospective cohort study that evaluated the freely available app Tät®. The app provided pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) and life-style advice. Non-pregnant, non-postpartum women (≥ 18 years) who downloaded the app to treat urinary incontinence were included, if they completed the Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) question at the 3-month follow-up (n = 1,733). Participants answered the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire (ICIQ-UI SF) at baseline and after 3 months. The score change was analysed for correlation (Spearman) with the PGI-I. We then analysed one-way ANOVAs to determine whether there were significant differences between the groups based on the answers to the PGI-I. The MID was set to the mean change of the group that selected the answer "a little better" to the PGI-I question.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The one-way ANOVA showed significant differences between PGI-I groups (p < 0.001). The MID for the general group was set to 1.46 (95% Confidence Interval [CI] 1.26-1.67). In the sub-group analyses, a MID for the group with slight incontinence could not be determined. For the group with moderate severity the MID was determined to be 1.33 (95% CI 1.10-1.57) and for the severe/very severe group it was 3.58 (95% CI 3.08-4.09). Analysis of different types of incontinence showed no difference in MIDs.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The MID for self-management via a mobile app was lower than previously established MIDs, but differed depending on baseline severity. This study shows that MIDs need adjustment for baseline severity and treatment intensity when interpreting clinical trial results. If using MIDs as exact numbers, the study population and the treatment must be comparable.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38355503
doi: 10.1186/s12905-024-02947-x
pii: 10.1186/s12905-024-02947-x
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
118Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Milsom I, Altman D, Cartwright R, Lapitan MC, Nelson R, Sjöström S, et al. Epidemiology of urinary incontinence (UI) and other lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), pelvic organ prolaps (POP), and anal incontinence (AI). In: Abrams P, Cardozo L, Wagg A, Wein A, editors. Incontinence. 6th ed. Bristol, UK: ICI-ICS. International Continence Society; 2017. pp. 4–142.
Saarni SI, Härkänen T, Sintonen H, Suvisaari J, Koskinen S, Aromaa A, et al. The impact of 29 chronic conditions on health-related quality of life: a general population survey in Finland using 15D and EQ-5D. Qual Life Res. 2006;15:1403–14.
doi: 10.1007/s11136-006-0020-1
pubmed: 16960751
Haylen BT, de Ridder D, Freeman RM, Swift SE, Berghmans B, Lee J, et al. An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for female pelvic floor dysfunction. Int Urogynecol J. 2010;21:5–26.
doi: 10.1007/s00192-009-0976-9
pubmed: 19937315
Lukacz ES, Santiago-Lastra Y, Albo ME, Brubaker L. Urinary incontinence in women: a review. JAMA. 2017;318:1592–604.
doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.12137
pubmed: 29067433
Abrams P, Andersson K-E, Apostolidis A, Birder L, Bliss D, Brubaker L, et al. Recommendations of the International Scientific Committee:evaluation and treatment of urinary incontinence, pelvic organ prolapse and faecal incontinence. In: Abrams P, Cardozo L, Wagg A, Wein A, editors. Incontinence. 6th ed. Bristol, UK: I CI-ICS. International Continence Society; 2017. pp. 2549–612.
Castro-Diaz D, Robinson D, Bosch R, Constantini E, Cotterill N, Espuña-Pons M et al. Patient-Reported Outcome Assessment. In: Abrams P, Cardozo L, Wagg A, Wein A, editors. Incontinence. 6th edition ed. Bristol, UK: ICI-ICS. International Continence Society; 2017. p. 541 – 98.
Lim R, Liong ML, Leong WS, Yuen KH. Which outcome measures should be used in stress urinary incontinence trials? BJU Int. 2018;121:805–10.
doi: 10.1111/bju.14121
pubmed: 29319927
Avery K, Donovan J, Peters TJ, Shaw C, Gotoh M, Abrams P. ICIQ: a brief and robust measure for evaluating the symptoms and impact of urinary incontinence. Neurourol Urodyn. 2004;23:322–30.
doi: 10.1002/nau.20041
pubmed: 15227649
Mokkink LB, Prinsen CA, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Bouter LM, de Vet HC et al. COSMIN Study Design checklist for Patient-reported outcome measurement instruments 2019 [Available from: https://www.cosmin.nl/wp-content/uploads/COSMIN-study-designing-checklist_final.pdf .
Sirls LT, Tennstedt S, Brubaker L, Kim HY, Nygaard I, Rahn DD, et al. The minimum important difference for the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-urinary incontinence short form in women with stress urinary incontinence. Neurourol Urodyn. 2015;34:183–7.
doi: 10.1002/nau.22533
pubmed: 24273137
Lim R, Liong ML, Lim KK, Leong WS, Yuen KH. The Minimum clinically important difference of the International Consultation on Incontinence questionnaires (ICIQ-UI SF and ICIQ-LUTSqol). Urology. 2019;133:91–5.
doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2019.08.004
pubmed: 31415780
Nyström E, Sjöström M, Stenlund H, Samuelsson E. ICIQ symptom and quality of life instruments measure clinically relevant improvements in women with stress urinary incontinence. Neurourol Urodyn. 2015;34:747–51.
doi: 10.1002/nau.22657
pubmed: 25154378
Schad F, Thronicke A. Real-world evidence-current developments and perspectives. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(16).
Rygh P, Asklund I, Samuelsson E. Real-world effectiveness of app-based treatment for urinary incontinence: a cohort study. BMJ Open. 2021;11:e040819.
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-040819
pubmed: 33397664
pmcid: 7783523
Klovning A, Avery K, Sandvik H, Hunskaar S. Comparison of two questionnaires for assessing the severity of urinary incontinence: the ICIQ-UI SF versus the incontinence severity index. Neurourol Urodyn. 2009;28:411–5.
doi: 10.1002/nau.20674
pubmed: 19214996
Yalcin I, Bump RC. Validation of two global impression questionnaires for incontinence. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;189:98–101.
doi: 10.1067/mob.2003.379
pubmed: 12861145
Espuña-Pons M, Dilla T, Castro D, Carbonell C, Casariego J, Puig-Clota M. Analysis of the value of the ICIQ-UI SF questionnaire and stress test in the differential diagnosis of the type of urinary incontinence. Neurourol Urodyn. 2007;26:836–41.
doi: 10.1002/nau.20379
pubmed: 17330896
Welch LC, Botelho EM, Joseph JJ, Tennstedt SL. A qualitative inquiry of patient-reported outcomes: the case of lower urinary tract symptoms. Nurs Res. 2012;61:283–90.
doi: 10.1097/NNR.0b013e318251d8f6
pubmed: 22565104
pmcid: 3398610
Labrie J, Lagro-Janssen AL, Fischer K, Berghmans LC, van der Vaart CH. Predicting who will undergo surgery after physiotherapy for female stress urinary incontinence. Int Urogynecol J. 2015;26:329–34.
doi: 10.1007/s00192-014-2473-z
pubmed: 25069638
Diez-Itza I, Espuña-Pons M, GISPEM GdIdDdSPeM. Evaluating the results of stress urinary incontinence surgery with objective and subjective outcome measures. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2014;180:68–71.
doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2014.06.020
pubmed: 25048150
Hilton P, Robinson D. Defining cure. Neurourol Urodyn. 2011;30:741–5.
doi: 10.1002/nau.21098
pubmed: 21661023
Wessels NJ, Hulshof L, Loohuis AMM, van Gemert-Pijnen L, Jellema P, van der Worp H, et al. User experiences and preferences regarding an app for the treatment of urinary incontinence in Adult women: qualitative study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2020;8:e17114.
doi: 10.2196/17114
pubmed: 32530431
pmcid: 7320303
Crosby RD, Kolotkin RL, Williams GR. Defining clinically meaningful change in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003;56:395–407.
doi: 10.1016/S0895-4356(03)00044-1
pubmed: 12812812
Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials. 1989;10:407–15.
doi: 10.1016/0197-2456(89)90005-6
pubmed: 2691207