Assessing professional equipoise and views about a future clinical trial of invasive urodynamics prior to surgery for stress urinary incontinence in women: a survey within a mixed methods feasibility study
- PMID: 23023322
- PMCID: PMC3504983
- DOI: 10.1002/nau.22328
Assessing professional equipoise and views about a future clinical trial of invasive urodynamics prior to surgery for stress urinary incontinence in women: a survey within a mixed methods feasibility study
Abstract
Aims: To determine surgeons' views on invasive urodynamic testing (IUT) prior to surgery for stress (SUI) or stress predominant mixed urinary incontinence (MUI).
Methods: Members of British Society of Urogynaecology (BSUG) and British Association of Urological Surgeons Section of Female, Neurological and Urodynamic Urology (BAUS-SFNUU) were sent an email invitation to complete an online "SurveyMonkey®" questionnaire regarding their current use of IUT prior to surgical treatment of SUI, their view about the necessity for IUT in various clinical scenarios, and their willingness to randomize patients into a future trial of IUT. A purposive sample of respondents was invited for telephone interview to explore further how they use IUT to inform clinical decisions, and to contextualize questionnaire responses.
Results: There were 176/517 (34%) responses, 106/332 (32%) from gynecologists/urogynecologists and 67/185 (36%) from urologists; all respondents had access to IUT, and 89% currently arrange IUT for most women with SUI or stress predominant MUI. For a variety of scenarios with increasingly complex symptoms the level of individual equipoise ("undecided" about IUT) was very low (1-6%) and community equipoise was, at best, 66:34 (IUT "essential" vs. "unnecessary") even for the simplest scenario. Nevertheless, 70% rated the research question underlying the proposed studies "very important" or "extremely important;" 60% recorded a "willingness to randomize" score ≥8/10.
Conclusions: Most urogynecologists and urologists consider IUT essential before surgery in SUI with or without other symptoms. Most however recognize the need for further research, and indicated a willingness to recruit into multicenter trials addressing this question.
Copyright © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Figures
Comment in
-
Re: Hilton P, Bryant A, Howel D, McColl E, Buckley BS, Lucas MG, et al. Assessing professional equipoise and views about a future clinical trial of invasive urodynamics prior to surgery for stress urinary incontinence in women: A survey within a mixed methods feasibility study. Neurourol Urodyn. 2012;31(8):1223-30.Neurourol Urodyn. 2016 Aug;35(6):750-1. doi: 10.1002/nau.22778. Epub 2015 Apr 29. Neurourol Urodyn. 2016. PMID: 25926153 No abstract available.
References
-
- McGrother CW, Donaldson MM, Shaw C. Storage symptoms of the bladder: Prevalence, incidence and need for services in the UK. BJU Int. 2004;93:763–9. - PubMed
-
- Hannestad YS, Rortveit G, Sandvik H. A community-based epidemiological survey of female urinary incontinence: The Norwegian EPINCONT study. epidemiology of incontinence in the County of Nord-Trondelag. J Clin Epidemiol. 2000;53:1150–7. - PubMed
-
- National Institute for Health & Clinical Excellence. Urinary incontinence: Costing report—Implementing NICE guidance in England. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence; 2006.
-
- Adekanmi OA, Edwards GJ, Barrington JW. The variation in urodynamic practice in the United Kingdom. J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;22:48–50. - PubMed
-
- National Collaborating Centre for Women's & Children's Health. Urinary incontinence—The management of urinary incontinence in women. London: Commissioned by the National Institute for Health & Clinical Excellence; 2006.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
