Systematic review and meta-analysis of methods of diagnostic assessment for urinary incontinence

Abstract

Aims: To evaluate the performance of all tests proposed for the diagnosis of urinary incontinence.

Methods: A systematic review and meta-analyses of the published literature of methods for diagnostic assessment of urinary incontinence.

Results: One hundred twenty-one papers were included in the full review [Martin et al., 2006]. The quality of reporting in the primary studies was poor which reduced the number of studies that could be included in the data analysis. The literature suggests that women with urodynamic stress incontinence (USI) can be correctly identified in primary care from clinical history alone with a sensitivity of 0.92 (95% C.I.: 0.91-0.93) and specificity of 0.56 (0.53-0.60). A clinical history for the diagnosis of detrusor overactivity (DO) was found to be 0.61 (0.57-0.65) sensitive and 0.87 (0.85-0.89) specific. Within secondary care imaging of leakage by ultrasound was found to be effective in the diagnosis of USI in women with a sensitivity of 0.89 (0.84-0.93) and specificity of 0.82 (0.73-0.89).

Conclusions: Clinical interpretation of the results of the review is difficult because few studies could be synthesized and conclusions made. The published evidence suggests that a large proportion of women with USI can be correctly identified in primary care from history alone. Ultrasound offers a useful diagnostic tool which could be used prior to, and possibly instead of, multi-channel urodynamics in some circumstances. If a patient is to undergo urodynamic testing, multi-channel urodynamics is likely to give the most accurate result. Further primary studies adhering to STARD guidelines are required on commonly used tests.