Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2011 Jul 6:12:169.
doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-12-169.

INVESTIGATE-I (INVasive Evaluation before Surgical Treatment of Incontinence Gives Added Therapeutic Effect?): study protocol for a mixed methods study to assess the feasibility of a future randomised controlled trial of the clinical utility of invasive urodynamic testing

Megan Murdoch  1 , Elaine McColl, Denise Howel, Mark Deverill, Brian S Buckley, Malcolm Lucas, Christopher R Chapple, Douglas G Tincello, Natalie Armstrong, Cath Brennand, Jing Shen, Luke Vale, Paul Hilton
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

INVESTIGATE-I (INVasive Evaluation before Surgical Treatment of Incontinence Gives Added Therapeutic Effect?): study protocol for a mixed methods study to assess the feasibility of a future randomised controlled trial of the clinical utility of invasive urodynamic testing

Megan Murdoch et al. Trials. .

Abstract

Background: Urinary incontinence is an important health problem to the individual sufferer and to health services. Stress and stress predominant mixed urinary incontinence are increasingly managed by surgery due to advances in surgical techniques. Despite the lack of evidence for its clinical utility, most clinicians undertake invasive urodynamic testing (IUT) to confirm a functional diagnosis of urodynamic stress incontinence before offering surgery for this condition. IUT is expensive, embarrassing and uncomfortable for women and carries a small risk. Recent systematic reviews have confirmed the lack of high quality evidence of effectiveness.The aim of this pilot study is to test the feasibility of a future definitive randomised control trial that would address whether IUT alters treatment decisions and treatment outcome in these women and would test its clinical and cost effectiveness.

Methods/design: This is a mixed methods pragmatic multicentre feasibility pilot study with four components:-(a) A multicentre, external pilot randomised trial comparing basic clinical assessment with non-invasive tests and IUT. The outcome measures are rates of recruitment, randomisation and data completion. Data will be used to estimate sample size necessary for the definitive trial.(b) Qualitative interviews of a purposively sampled sub-set of women eligible for the pilot trial will explore willingness to participate, be randomised and their overall trial experience.(c) A national survey of clinicians to determine their views of IUT in this context, the main outcome being their willingness to randomise patients into the definitive trial.(d) Qualitative interviews of a purposively sampled group of these clinicians will explore whether and how they use IUT to inform their decisions.

Discussion: The pilot trial will provide evidence of feasibility and acceptability and therefore inform the decision whether to proceed to the definitive trial. Results will inform the design and conduct of the definitive trial and ensure its effectiveness in achieving its research aim.

Trial registration number: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN71327395 assigned 7th June 2010.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Hunskaar S, Burgio K, Clark A, Lapitan M, Nelson R, Sillen U. In: ICUD-ICS-SIU 3rd International Consultation on Incontinence. 3. Abrams P, Khoury S, Cardozo L, Wein A, editor. Plymouth, UK: Health Publications; 2005. Epidemiology of urinary and feacal incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse; pp. 255–312.
    1. Hannestad YS, Rortveit G, Sandvik H, Hunskaar S. A community-based epidemiological survey of female urinary incontinence: the Norwegian EPINCONT study. Epidemiology of Incontinence in the County of Nord-Trondelag. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2000;53(11):1150–7. doi: 10.1016/S0895-4356(00)00232-8. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Turner DA, Shaw C, McGrother CW, Dallosso HM, Cooper NJ. The cost of clinically significant urinary storage symptoms for community dwelling adults in the UK. BJU Int. 2004;93(9):1246–52. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410x.2004.04806.x. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Martin JL, Williams KS, Abrahams KR, Turner DA, Sutton A, Chapple C, Assessa R, Cheater F. Systematic review and evaluation of methods of assessing urinary incontinence. Health Technology Assessments. 2006. Report No.: 6 Contract No.: 6. - PubMed
    1. Adekanmi OA, Edwards GJ, Barrington JW. The variation in urodynamic practice in the United Kingdom. J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;22(1):48–50. doi: 10.1080/01443610120101727. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

Associated data