Validation of a Two-Item Quantitative Questionnaire for the Triage of Women With Urinary Incontinence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the reproducibility, construct validity, and preferences for the 2-item Stress/Urge Incontinence Questionnaire. METHODS: The questionnaire asks a patient to recall the number of stress urinary incontinence and urge urinary incontinence episodes she experienced during the preceding week. The 4-week prospective study included 3 office visits and enrolled women with stress, urge, or mixed urinary incontinence symptoms. The test-retest reproducibility was assessed after 3 days, and the construct validity of the questionnaire was evaluated against a diary and other measures of incontinence severity and effect. The bother associated with completing (patients) or analyzing (physicians) the diary was assessed. Both groups also reported their time requirements and preferences for the questionnaire or diary. RESULTS: Reproducibility for the classification of symptoms was moderately strong (kappa = .536). Test-retest agreement was good (64-80%) for all but balanced mixed incontinence (38%). Intraclass correlations revealed good reproducibility for the number of stress (.694), urge (.703), and total (.726) incontinence episodes. Significant (P < .01) correlations with other measures of incontinence established construct validity. Patients and physicians reported it took less time to complete the questionnaire than the diary, but the majority said the completion or analysis of the diary was of little or no bother and preferred the diary. CONCLUSION: The Stress/Urge Incontinence Questionnaire is a valid tool that can be used in clinical practice to differentiate between symptoms of stress and urge urinary incontinence to make an initial diagnosis, especially in primary care where incontinence is not a focus of the practice.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.058 | 0.119 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".