Responsiveness of Health-Related Quality of Life Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Women Receiving Conservative Treatment for Urinary Incontinence: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Responsive patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are able to detect change induced by a treatment. It is unknown whether PROMs on urinary incontinence (UI) are responsive in a conservative management setting. Objective: To systematically review the responsiveness of recommended PROMs (grade A) for the assessment of health-related quality of life in women receiving conservative treatment for UI. Study Design: Systematic review. Methods: A literature search was conducted on MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL. Selection criteria included women with UI undergoing conservative treatment, grade A-recommended PROM measuring the impact of UI on health-related quality of life, at least 1 responsiveness index, and original results. Two reviewers independently performed screening, data extraction, and methodological quality assessment using COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments (COSMIN). A descriptive analysis was conducted. Results: Five studies, including 5 PROMs, were retained (n = 672 participants). Participants had mixed UI (n = 3 studies) or stress UI (n = 2 studies). Flaws in methodological quality were identified (n = 1 study) for the assessment of responsiveness (COSMIN Box I) and (n = 3 studies) for interpretability (Box J). Highest internal responsiveness was found for the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire—Urinary Incontinence Short Form (ICIQ-UI SF) (standardized response mean: 2.07, effect size = 2.12) and highest external responsiveness was found for the Protection Amount Frequency Adjustment Body Image Questionnaire (PRAFAB-Q) (area under the curve: 0.96). Conclusion: Four questionnaires presented at least 1 high responsiveness index (Urinary Incontinence Specific Quality of Life Instrument [I-QOL], PRAFAB-Q, ICIQ-UI SF, and International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire—Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Quality of Life Modules [ICIQ-LUTSqol]). While the ICIQ-UI presented the highest overall responsiveness index, the PRAFAB-Q, an informative and brief questionnaire for clinical use, had the highest index with the highest methodological quality. There is a need to further confirm responsiveness of PROMs in this population and context.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".