Value of the patient's case history in diagnosing urinary incontinence in general practice

Abstract

What is the value of the case history in diagnosing urinary incontinence in general practice? A total of 103 women with urinary incontinence presented to their general practitioner (GP) and underwent a standard history-taking, physical examination and urodynamic testing. The urodynamic diagnoses were analysed against symptoms and symptom complexes. Symptoms of stress incontinence in the absence of symptoms of urge incontinence had a sensitivity of 78%, specificity of 84% and predictive value of 87%. Symptoms of urge incontinence in the absence of symptoms of stress incontinence excluded genuine stress incontinence. Information on age, parity, enuresis, nocturia, frequency, urgency, cystocele, prolapse and hysterectomy did not contribute to a correct diagnosis. It was concluded that urodynamics are unnecessary in most women presenting with urinary incontinence in general practice.