| Title |
Incontinence-specific quality of life measures used in trials of treatments for female urinary incontinence: a systematic review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Urogynecology Journal & Pelvic Floor Dysfunction, July 2005
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00192-005-1357-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sue Ross, Dana Soroka, Amalia Karahalios, Cathryn M. A. Glazener, E. Jean C. Hay-Smith, Harold P. Drutz |
| Abstract |
This systematic review examined the use of incontinence-specific quality of life (QOL) measures in clinical trials of female incontinence treatments, and systematically evaluated their quality using a standard checklist. Of 61 trials included in the review, 58 (95.1%) used an incontinence-specific QOL measure. The most commonly used were IIQ (19 papers), I-QoL (12 papers) and UDI (9 papers). Eleven papers (18.0%) used measures which were not referenced or were developed specifically for the study. The eight QOL measures identified had good clinical face validity and measurement properties. We advise researchers to evaluate carefully the needs of their specific study, and select the QOL measure that is most appropriate in terms of validity, utility and relevance, and discourage the development of new measures. Until better evidence is available on the validity and comparability of measures, we recommend that researchers consider using IIQ or I-QOL with or without UDI in trials of incontinence treatments. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 29 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 8 | 28% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 17% |
| Researcher | 4 | 14% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 5 | 17% |
| Unknown | 3 | 10% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 52% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 14% |
| Sports and Recreations | 3 | 10% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Unknown | 2 | 7% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 May 2017.
All research outputs
#7,363,939
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from International Urogynecology Journal & Pelvic Floor Dysfunction
#704
of 2,900 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,352
of 70,179 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Urogynecology Journal & Pelvic Floor Dysfunction
#7
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,900 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 70,179 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.