Clinical tools for evaluating the severity of overactive bladder: A systematic review of psychometric properties
Authors:
Ali, M. U., Winser, S. J., Kannan, P., Kranz, G. S., and Fong, K. N.
Abstract:
OBJECTIVES: To systematically evaluate the evidence describing the psychometric properties of clinical measures for assessing overactive bladder symptoms (urinary urgency with or without urge urinary incontinence, urinary frequency and nocturia). To evaluate the quality of this evidence-base using the COnsensus-based Standards for selecting health status Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) tools.
DATA SOURCES: Five electronic databases (CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Scopus and Web of Science) were searched from dataset inception to August 2023.
REVIEW METHODS: Study screening, data extraction and quality appraisal were performed by two independent authors. Inclusion criteria were studies testing one or more psychometric properties of clinical tools for the assessment of overactive bladder symptoms among adults aged 18 years and older for both sexes. The methodological quality and quality of the evidence were evaluated using the COSMIN checklist and GRADE tools, respectively.
RESULTS: The search identified 40 studies totalling 10,634 participants evaluating the psychometric properties of 15 clinical tools. The COSMIN methodological quality was rated good for most measures, and the GRADE quality of evidence ranged from low (13%) to high (33%). The Overactive Bladder Symptom Score, Overactive Bladder Questionnaire and Neurogenic Bladder Symptom Score were of good methodological and high-GRADE evidence qualities.
CONCLUSION: Overactive Bladder Symptom Score, the Overactive Bladder Questionnaire and the Neurogenic Bladder Symptoms Score are promising psychometrically sound measures. The Overactive Bladder Symptom Score has been applied to the most culturally diverse populations supported by studies of good methodological and high-GRADE evidence quality.
