Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A systematic review of English language patient-reported outcome measures for use in urogynaecology and female pelvic medicine

  • Review Article
  • Published:
International Urogynecology Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Commentary to this article was published on 29 May 2021

Abstract

Introduction

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are widely used in clinical practice and research in urogynaecology. There is no consensus on which PROMs should be used. No unifying document identifies all available PROMs and compares the psychometric properties of these.

Methods

Systematic review of the literature following PRISMA guidelines. Studies where women had been administered an English-language PROM which assessed pelvic-floor symptomatology and psychometric properties had been reported were included.

Results

85 PROMs assessing pelvic-floor symptoms in a urogynaecology population were identified. 43 PROMs assessed lower urinary tract symptoms in 95 studies, four PROMS assessed vaginal symptoms in seven studies, 20 PROMs assessed bowel symptoms in 27 studies and three PROMs assessed sexual symptoms in seven studies. 15 PROMs assessed two or more of these symptom areas in 60 studies. PROMs with the with the best available psychometric evidence within these five areas were (urinary symptoms) the Incontinence Quality-of-Life questionnaire (I-QOL aka ICIQ-UIqol) and International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire (ICIQ-UI-SF), (bowel symptoms) the Accidental Bowel Leakage Evaluation (ABLE) questionnaire and the International Consultation on Incontinence Bowel questionnaire (ICIQ-B), (vaginal symptoms) the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Symptom Score (POPSS), (sexual symptoms) the Pelvic organ prolapse- urinary Incontinence Sexual function Questionnaire- IUGA revised (PISQ-IR) and (comprehensive PROMs) the Australian Pelvic Floor Questionnaire and the Electronic Personal Assessment Questionnaire-Pelvic-Floor (ePAQ-PF).

Conclusions

Multiple PROMs with robust psychometric properties are available. Some widely used PROMs have weak evidence. Formal recommendations on which English-language PROMs to use within clinical practice and research in urogynaecology are required.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Devlin NJ, Appleby J. Getting the most out of PROMs. Putting health outcomes at the heart of NHS decision-making. London: The King's Fund; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Gray T, Li W, Campbell P, Jha S, Radley S. Evaluation of coital incontinence by electronic questionnaire: prevalence, associations and outcomes in women attending a urogynaecology clinic. Int Urogynecol J. 2018;29(7):969–78.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Schüssler-Fiorenza Rose SM, Gangnon RE, Chewning B, Wald A. Increasing discussion rates of incontinence in primary care: a randomized controlled trial. J Women's Health. 2015;24(11):940–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Abrams P, Avery K, Gardener N, Donovan J. ICIQ advisory board. The international consultation on incontinence modular questionnaire: www. ICIQ. Net. J Urol. 2006;175(3):1063–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Avery KN, Bosch JL, Gotoh M, Naughton M, Jackson S, Radley SC, et al. Questionnaires to assess urinary and anal incontinence: review and recommendations. J Urol. 2007;177(1):39–49.

  6. Sung VW, Marques F, Rogers RR, Williams DA, Myers DL, Clark MA. Content validation of the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) framework in women with urinary incontinence. Neurourol Urodynam. 2011;30(4):503–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bordeianou LG, Anger J, Boutros M, Birnbaum E, Carmichael JC, Connell K, et al. Measuring pelvic floor disorder symptoms using patient-reported instruments: proceedings of the consensus meeting of the pelvic floor consortium of the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons, the international continence society, the American Urogynecologic Society, and the Society of Urodynamics, female pelvic medicine and urogenital reconstruction. Female Pelvic Med Reconstruct Surg. 2020;26(1):1–15.

  8. Kelly CE. Which questionnaires should be used in female urology practice? Current Urol Reports. 2003;4(5):375–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Matza LS, Zyczynski TM, Bavendam T. A review of quality-of-life questionnaires for urinary incontinence and overactive bladder: which ones to use and why? Current Urol Reports. 2004;5(5):336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Gotoh M. Quality of life assessment for patients with urinary incontinence. Nagoya J Med Sci. 2007;69(3/4):123.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Omotosho TB, Rogers RG. Shortcomings/strengths of specific sexual function questionnaires currently used in urogynecology: a literature review. Int Urogynecol J. 2009;20(1):51–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Khullar V. Patient-reported outcomes and different approaches to urinary parameters in overactive bladder: what should we measure? Int Urogynecol J. 2012;23(2):179–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Treszezamsky AD, Ehsani N, Connell R, Dick-Biascoechea M, Fashokun T. Use of patient reported outcome questionnaires in the urogynecologic literature. Neurourol Urodynam. 2013;32(4):336–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Hewison A, McCaughan D, Watt I. An evaluative review of questionnaires recommended for the assessment of quality of life and symptom severity in women with urinary incontinence. J Clin Nurs. 2014;23(21–22):2998–3011.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Mestre M, Lleberia J, Pubill J, Espuña-Pons M. Questionnaires in the assessment of sexual function in women with urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse. Actas Urológicas Españolas (English Edition). 2015;39(3):175–82.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Hewison A, McCaughan D, Watt I. Assessing quality of life with incontinence. Nurs Times. 2015;111(20):21–3.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Zappavigna C, Carr LK. Validated questionnaires for the evaluation of urinary incontinence—which, when and why? Current Bladder Dysfunct Reports. 2015;10(2):138–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse in women: management (NICE guideline NG123). Apr 2019. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/NG123. Accessed 25 May 2021.

  19. Cumberlege J First do no harm: the report of the Independent Medicine and Medical Devices Safety Review (IMMDS). 2020. https://www.immdsreview.org.uk/downloads/IMMDSReview_Web.pdf. Accessed 25 May 2021.

  20. Fitzpatrick R, Davey C, Buxton MJ, Jones DR. Evaluating patient-based outcome measures for use in clinical trials. Health Technol Assessment. 1998;2:1–74.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Gibbons E, Mckintosh A, Fitzpatrick R. A structured review of patient-reported outcome measures for people undergoing elective procedures for benign gynaecological conditions of the uterus: report to the department of health. Oxford: University of Oxford; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Preston NJ, Wilson N, Wood NJ, Brine J, Ferreira J, Brearley SG. Patient-reported outcome measures for use in gynaecological oncology: a systematic review. BJOG Int J Obstet Gynaecol. 2015 Apr;122(5):615–22.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Gray TG, Sneyd R, Scurr K, Jones GL, Iles D, Jha S, et al. Patient-reported outcome measures which assess body image in urogynaecology patients: a systematic review. Int Urogynecol J. 2019;30(5):673–81.

  24. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000100.

  25. Fayers PM, Machin D. Quality of life: the assessment, analysis and interpretation of patient-reported outcomes 2nd edition. New York: Wiley; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika. 1951;16(3):297–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Cohen J. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Measurement. 1960;20(1):37–46.

  28. Streiner DL, Norman GR, Cairney J. Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2015.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  29. Cronbach LJ, Meehl PE. Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychol Bull. 1955;52(4):281.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Alrubaiy L, Hutchings HA, Williams JG. Assessing patient reported outcome measures: a practical guide for gastroenterologists. United European Gastroenterol J. 2014;2(6):463–70.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Basra R, Artibani W, Cardozo L, Castro-Diaz D, Chapple C, Cortes E, et al. Design and validation of a new screening instrument for lower urinary tract dysfunction: the bladder control self-assessment questionnaire (B-SAQ). European Urol. 2007;52(1):230–8.

  32. Basra RK, Cortes E, Khullar V, Kelleher C. A comparison study of two lower urinary tract symptoms screening tools in clinical practice: the B-SAQ and OAB-V8 questionnaires. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2012;32(7):666–71.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Minassian VA, Yan XS, Sun H, Platte RO, Stewart WF. Clinical validation of the bladder health survey for urinary incontinence in a population sample of women. Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27(3):453–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Jackson S, Donovan J, Brookes S, Eckford S, Swithinbank L, Abrams P. The Bristol female lower urinary tract symptoms questionnaire: development and psychometric testing. British J Urol. 1996;77(6):805–12.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Brookes ST, Donovan JL, Wright M, Jackson S, Abrams P. A scored form of the Bristol female lower urinary tract symptoms questionnaire: data from a randomized controlled trial of surgery for women with stress incontinence. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004;191(1):73–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Khan MS, Chaliha C, Leskova L, Khullar V. A randomized crossover trial to examine administration techniques related to the Bristol female lower urinary tract symptom (BFLUTS) questionnaire. Neurourol Urodynam: Off J Int Continence Soc. 2005;24(3):211–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Reid FM, Smith AR, Dunn G. Which questionnaire? A psychometric evaluation of three patient-based outcome measures used to assess surgery for stress urinary incontinence. Neurourol Urodynam Off J Int Continence Soc. 2007;26(1):123–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Jansen L, Forbes D. The psychometric testing of a urinary incontinence nursing assessment instrument. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2006;33(1):69–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Tannenbaum C, Brouillette J, Korner-Bitensky N, Dumoulin C, Corcos J, Tu LM, et al. Creation and testing of the geriatric self-efficacy index for urinary incontinence. J Am Geriatrics Soc. 2008;56(3):542–7.

  40. Tannenbaum C, Brouillette J, Michaud J, Korner-Bitensky N, Dumoulin C, Corcos J, et al. Responsiveness and clinical utility of the geriatric self-efficacy index for urinary incontinence. J Am Geriatrics Soc. 2009;57(3):470–5.

  41. Hanley J, Capewell A, Hagen S. Validity study of the severity index, a simple measure of urinary incontinence in women. BMJ. 2001;322(7294):1096–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Wren PA, Janz NK, Brubaker L, Fitzgerald MP, Weber AM, LaPorte FB, et al. Pelvic floor disorders network. Reliability of health-related quality-of-life measures 1 year after surgical procedures for pelvic floor disorders. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;192(3):780–8.

  43. Abdel-Fattah M, Ramsay I, Barrington JW. A simple visual analogue scale to assess the quality of life in women with urinary incontinence. European J Obstet Gynecol Reproduct Biol. 2007;133(1):86–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Wagner TH, Patrick DL, Bavendam TG, Martin ML, Buesching DE. Quality of life of persons with urinary incontinence: development of a new measure. Urology. 1996;47(1):67–71.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Patrick DL, Martin ML, Bushnell DM, Yalcin I, Wagner TH, Buesching DP. Quality of life of women with urinary incontinence: further development of the incontinence quality of life instrument (I-QOL). Urology. 1999;53(1):71–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Yalcin I, Patrick DL, Summers K, Kinchen K, Bump RC. Minimal clinically important differences in incontinence quality-of-life scores in stress urinary incontinence. Urology. 2006;67(6):1304–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Bushnell DM, Martin ML, Summers KH, Svihra J, Lionis C, Patrick DL. Quality of life of women with urinary incontinence: cross-cultural performance of 15 language versions of the I-QOL. Quality Life Res. 2005;14(8):1901–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Haywood KL, Garratt AM, Lall R, Smith JF, Lamb SE. EuroQol EQ-5D and condition-specific measures of health outcome in women with urinary incontinence: reliability, validity and responsiveness. Qual Life Res. 2008;17(3):475–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Patrick DL, Khalaf KM, Dmochowski R, Kowalski JW, Globe DR. Psychometric performance of the incontinence quality-of-life questionnaire among patients with overactive bladder and urinary incontinence. Clin Therapeutics. 2013;35(6):836–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Gunthorpe W, Brown W, Redman S. The development and evaluation of an incontinence screening questionnaire for female primary care. Neurourol Urodynam: Off J Int Continence Soc. 2000;19(5):595–607.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Twiss C, Triaca V, Anger J, Patel M, Smith A, Kim JH, et al. Validating the incontinence symptom severity index: a self-assessment instrument for voiding symptom severity in women. J Urol. 2009;182(5):2384–91.

  52. Nixon A, Colman S, Sabounjian L, Sandage B, Schwiderski UE, Staskin DR, et al. A validated patient reported measure of urinary urgency severity in overactive bladder for use in clinical trials. J Urol. 2005;174(2):604–7.

  53. Avery K, Donovan J, Peters TJ, Shaw C, Gotoh M, Abrams P. ICIQ: a brief and robust measure for evaluating the symptoms and impact of urinary incontinence. Neurourol Urodynam: Off J Int Continence Soc. 2004;23(4):322–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Hajebrahimi S, Corcos J, Lemieux MC. International consultation on incontinence questionnaire short form: comparison of physician versus patient completion and immediate and delayed self-administration. Urology. 2004;63(6):1076–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Karantanis E, Fynes M, Moore KH, Stanton SL. Comparison of the ICIQ-SF and 24-hour pad test with other measures for evaluating the severity of urodynamic stress incontinence. Int Urogynecol J. 2004;15(2):111–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Klovning A, Avery K, Sandvik H, Hunskaar S. Comparison of two questionnaires for assessing the severity of urinary incontinence: the ICIQ-UI SF versus the incontinence severity index. Neurourol Urodynam: Off J Int Continence Soc. 2009;28(5):411–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Bakali E, Gafni-Kane A, Botros S, Tincello DG. Factors influencing women's participation in urogynecology research in the UK and USA. Neurourol Urodynam. 2011;30(8):1462–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Cartwright R, Srikrishna S, Cardozo L, Robinson D. Validity and reliability of patient selected goals as an outcome measure in overactive bladder. Int Urogynecol J. 2011;22(7):841–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Sirls LT, Tennstedt S, Brubaker L, Kim HY, Nygaard I, Rahn DD, et al. The minimum important difference for the international consultation on incontinence questionnaire—urinary incontinence short form in women with stress urinary incontinence. Neurourol Urodynam. 2015;34(2):183–7.

  60. Larsen MD, Lose G, Guldberg R, Gradel KO. Discrepancies between patient-reported outcome measures when assessing urinary incontinence or pelvic-prolapse surgery. Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27(4):537–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Slavin V, Gamble J, Creedy DK, Fenwick J. Perinatal incontinence: psychometric evaluation of the international consultation on incontinence questionnaire—urinary incontinence short form and Wexner scale. Neurourol Urodynam. 2019;38(8):2209–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Kelleher CJ, Cardozo LD, Khullar V, Salvatore S. A new questionnaire to assess the quality of life of urinary incontinent women. BJOG Int J Obstet Gynaecol. 1997;104(12):1374–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Reese PR, Pleil AM, Okano GJ, Kelleher CJ. Multinational study of reliability and validity of the King's health questionnaire in patients with overactive bladder. Quality Life Res. 2003;12(4):427–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Vij M, Srikrishna S, Robinson D, Cardozo L. Quality assurance in quality of life assessment—measuring the validity of the King’s health questionnaire. Int Urogynecol J. 2014;25(8):1133–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Juul L, Van Rensburg JA, Steyn PS. Validation of the king’s health questionnaire for South Africa in English, Afrikaans and isiXhosa. South African J Obstet Gynaecol. 2012;18(3).

  66. Shaw C, Matthews RJ, Perry SI, Williams K, Spiers N, Assassa RP, et al. Validity and reliability of a questionnaire to measure the impact of lower urinary tract symptoms on quality of life: the Leicester impact scale. Neurourol Urodynam. 2004;23(3):229–36.

  67. Shaw C, Matthews RJ, Perry SI, Assassa RP, Williams K, McGrother C, et al. Incontinence study team. Validity and reliability of an interviewer-administered questionnaire to measure the severity of lower urinary tract symptoms of storage abnormality: the Leicester urinary symptom questionnaire. BJU Intl. 2002;90(3):205–15.

  68. Lowenstein L, Rickey L, Kenton K, FitzGerald MP, Brubaker L, Tulke M, et al. Reliability and responsiveness of the urgency severity and life impact questionnaire (usiq). Intl Urogynecol J. 2012;23(2):193–6.

  69. Suskind AM, Dunn RL, Morgan DM, DeLancey JO, McGuire EJ, Wei JT. The Michigan incontinence symptom index (M-ISI): a clinical measure for type, severity, and bother related to urinary incontinence. Neurourol Urodynam. 2014;33(7):1128–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Suskind AM, Dunn RL, Morgan DM, DeLancey JO, Rew KT, Wei JT. A screening tool for clinically relevant urinary incontinence. Neurourol urodynam. 2015;34(4):332–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Coyne KS, Zyczynski T, Margolis MK, Elinoff V, Roberts RG. Validation of an overactive bladder awareness tool for use in primary care settings. Adv therapy. 2005;22(4):381–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Coyne K, Revicki D, Hunt T, Corey R, Stewart W, Bentkover J, et al. Psychometric validation of an overactive bladder symptom and health-related quality of life questionnaire: the OAB-q. Quality Life Res. 2002;11(6):563–74.

  73. Coyne KS, Matza LS, Thompson CL. The responsiveness of the overactive bladder questionnaire (OAB-q). Qual Life Res. 2005;14(3):849–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Matza LS, Thompson CL, Krasnow J, Brewster-Jordan J, Zyczynski T, Coyne KS. Test-retest reliability of four questionnaires for patients with overactive bladder: the overactive bladder questionnaire (OAB-q), patient perception of bladder condition (PPBC), urgency questionnaire (UQ), and the primary OAB symptom questionnaire (POSQ). Neurourol Urodynam: Off J Intl Continence Soc. 2005;24(3):215–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Coyne KS, Matza LS, Thompson CL, Kopp ZS, Khullar V. Determining the importance of change in the overactive bladder questionnaire. J Urol. 2006;176(2):627–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Coyne KS, Matza LS, Thompson C, Jumadilova Z, Bavendam T. The responsiveness of the OAB-q among OAB patient subgroups. Neurourol Urodynam: Off J Int Continence Soc. 2007;26(2):196–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Coyne KS, Gelhorn H, Thompson C, Kopp ZS, Guan Z. The psychometric validation of a 1-week recall period for the OAB-q. Int Urogynecol J. 2011;22(12):1555–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Gaines T, Malik RD. Readability of pelvic floor dysfunction questionnaires. Neurourol Urodynam. 2020;39(2):813–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Coyne KS, Thompson CL, Lai JS, Sexton CC. An overactive bladder symptom and health-related quality of life short-form: validation of the OAB-q SF. Neurourol urodynam. 2015;34(3):255–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Piault E, Evans CJ, Espindle D, Kopp Z, Brubaker L, Abrams P. Development and validation of the overactive bladder satisfaction (OAB-S) questionnaire. Neurourol Urodynam. 2008;27(3):179–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Zinner N, Harnett M, Sabounjian L, Sandage BO Jr, Dmochowski R, Staskin D. The overactive bladder-symptom composite score: a composite symptom score of toilet voids, urgency severity and urge urinary incontinence in patients with overactive bladder. J Urol. 2005;173(5):1639–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Homma Y, Fujimura T. Psychometric validation of the English version of the overactive bladder symptom score. Urology. 2014;84(1):46–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Tincello DG, Owen RK, Slack MC, Abrams KR. Validation of the patient global impression scales for use in detrusor overactivity: secondary analysis of the RELAX study. BJOG: Intl J Obstet Gynaecol. 2013;120(2):212–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  84. Yalcin I, Bump RC. Validation of two global impression questionnaires for incontinence. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;189(1):98–101.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Yalcin I, Viktrup L. Comparison of physician and patient assessments of incontinence severity and improvement. Int Urogynecol J. 2007;18(11):1291–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Coyne KS, Matza LS, Kopp Z, Abrams P. The validation of the patient perception of bladder condition (PPBC): a single-item global measure for patients with overactive bladder. European Urol. 2006;49(6):1079–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Cartwright R, Panayi D, Cardozo L, Khullar V. Reliability and normal ranges for the Patient’s perception of intensity of urgency scale in asymptomatic women. BJU Intl. 2010;105(6):832–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Cartwright R, Srikrishna S, Cardozo L, Robinson D. Validity and reliability of the patient’s perception of intensity of urgency scale in overactive bladder. BJU Intl. 2011;107(10):1612–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Notte SM, Marshall TS, Lee M, Hakimi Z, Odeyemi I, Chen WH, et al. Content validity and test-retest reliability of patient perception of intensity of urgency scale (PPIUS) for overactive bladder. BMC Urol. 2012;12(1):26.

  90. Bradley CS, Rovner ES, Morgan MA, Berlin M, Novi JM, Shea JA, et al. A new questionnaire for urinary incontinence diagnosis in women: development and testing. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;192(1):66–73.

  91. Bradley CS, Rahn DD, Nygaard IE, Barber MD, Nager CW, Kenton KS, et al. The questionnaire for urinary incontinence diagnosis (QUID): validity and responsiveness to change in women undergoing non-surgical therapies for treatment of stress predominant urinary incontinence. Neurourol Urodynam. 2010;29(5):727–34.

  92. Blackwell AL, Yoong W, Moore KH. Criterion validity, test-retest reliability and sensitivity to change of the St George urinary incontinence score. BJU Intl. 2004;93(3):331–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  93. Raz S, Erickson DR. SEAPI QMM incontinence classification system. Neurourol Urodynam. 1992;11(3):187–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Stothers L. Reliability, validity, and gender differences in the quality of life index of the SEAPI-QMM incontinence classification system. Neurourol Urodynam. 2004;23(3):223–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Black N, Griffiths J, Pope C. Development of a symptom severity index and a symptom impact index for stress incontinence in women. Neurourol Urodynam: Off J Intl Continence Soc. 1996;15(6):630–40.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  96. Brown JS, Bradley CS, Subak LL, Richter HE, Kraus SR, Brubaker L, et al. The sensitivity and specificity of a simple test to distinguish between urge and stress urinary incontinence. Annals Intl Med. 2006;144(10):715–23.

  97. Brown JS, Posner SF, Stewart AL. Urge incontinence: new health-related quality of life measures. J Am Geriatrics Soc. 1999;47(8):980–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  98. Lubeck DP, Prebil LA, Peeples P, Brown JS. A health related quality of life measure for use in patients with urge urinary incontinence: a validation study. Qual Life Res. 1999;8(4):337–44.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. Cardozo L, Coyne KS, Versi E. Validation of the urgency perception scale. BJU Intl. 2005;95(4):591–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Coyne KS, Sexton CC, Thompson C, Bavendam T, Brubaker L. Development and psychometric evaluation of the urgency questionnaire for evaluating severity and health-related quality of life impact of urinary urgency in overactive bladder. Intl Urogynecol J. 2015;26(3):373–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. Lowenstein L, FitzGerald MP, Kenton K, Hatchett L, Durazo-Arvizu R, Mueller ER, et al. Evaluation of urgency in women, with a validated urgency, severity and impact questionnaire (USIQ). Intl Urogynecol J. 2009;20(3):301–7.

  102. Wang YC, Hart DL, Deutscher D, Yen SC, Mioduski JE. Psychometric properties and practicability of the self-report urinary incontinence questionnaire in patients with pelvic-floor dysfunction seeking outpatient rehabilitation. Phys Therapy. 2013;93(8):1116–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Lee PS, Reid DW, Saltmarche A, Linton L. Measuring the psychosocial impact of urinary incontinence: the York incontinence perceptions scale (YIPS). J Am Geriatrics Soc. 1995;43(11):1275–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  104. Hagen S, Glazener C, Sinclair L, Stark D, Bugge C. Psychometric properties of the pelvic organ prolapse symptom score. BJOG: Intl J Obstet Gynaecol. 2009;116(1):25–31.

  105. Lowder JL, Ghetti C, Oliphant SS, Skoczylas LC, Swift S, Switzer GE. Body image in the pelvic organ prolapse questionnaire: development and validation. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;211(2):174–e1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  106. Digesu GA, Khullar V, Cardozo L, Robinson D, Salvatore S. P-QOL: a validated questionnaire to assess the symptoms and quality of life of women with urogenital prolapse. Intl Urogynecol J. 2005;16(3):176–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  107. Price N, Jackson SR, Avery K, Brookes ST, Abrams P. Development and psychometric evaluation of the ICIQ vaginal symptoms questionnaire: the ICIQ-VS. BJOG: Intl J Obstet Gynaecol. 2006 Jun;113(6):700–12.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  108. Rogers RG, Sung VW, Lukacz ES, Fairchild P, Arya LA, Barber MD, et al. Accidental bowel leakage evaluation: a new patient-centered validated measure of accidental bowel leakage symptoms in women. Diseases Colon Rectum. 2020;63(5):668–77.

  109. Rogers RG, Bann CM, Barber MD, Fairchild P, Lukacz ES, Arya L, et al. The responsiveness and minimally important difference for the accidental bowel leakage evaluation questionnaire. Intl Urogynecol J. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-020-04367-5.

  110. Vaizey CJ, Carapeti E, Cahill JA, Kamm MA. Prospective comparison of faecal incontinence grading systems. Gut. 1999;44(1):77–80.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  111. Agachan F, Chen T, Pfeifer J, Reissman P, Wexner SD. A constipation scoring system to simplify evaluation and management of constipated patients. Diseases Colon Rectum. 1996;39(6):681–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  112. Macmillan AK, Merrie AE, Marshall RJ, Parry BR. Design and validation of a comprehensive fecal incontinence questionnaire. Diseases Colon Rectum. 2008;51(10):1502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  113. McMillan SC, Williams FA. Validity and reliability of the constipation assessment scale. Cancer Nurs. 1989;12(3):183–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  114. Wang JY, Hart SL, Lee J, Berian JR, McCrea GL, Varma MG. A valid and reliable measure of constipation-related quality of life. Diseases Colon Rectum. 2009;52(8):1434–42.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  115. Varma MG, Wang JY, Berian JR, Patterson TR, McCrea GL, Hart SL. The constipation severity instrument: a validated measure. Diseases Colon Rectum. 2008;51(2):162–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  116. Bharucha AE, Locke GR III, Seide BM, Zinsmeister AR. A new questionnaire for constipation and faecal incontinence. Alimentary Pharmacol Therapeutics. 2004;20(3):355–64.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  117. Noelting J, Zinsmeister AR, Bharucha AE. Validating endpoints for therapeutic trials in fecal incontinence. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2016;28(8):1148–56.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  118. Wang YC, Deutscher D, Yen SC, Werneke MW, Mioduski JE. The self-report fecal incontinence and constipation questionnaire in patients with pelvic-floor dysfunction seeking outpatient rehabilitation. Phys Therapy. 2014;94(2):273–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  119. Rockwood TH, Church JM, Fleshman JW, Kane RL, Mavrantonis C, Thorson AG, et al. Fecal incontinence quality of life scale. Diseases Colon Rectum. 2000;43(1):9–16.

  120. Peterson AC, Sutherland JM, Liu G, Crump RT, Karimuddin AA. Evaluation of the fecal incontinence quality of life scale (FIQL) using item response theory reveals limitations and suggests revisions. Qual Life Res. 2018;27(6):1613–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  121. Reilly WT, Talley NJ, Pemberton JH, Zinsmeister AR. Validation of a questionnaire to assess fecal incontinence and associated risk factors. Diseases Colon Rectum. 2000;43(2):146–53.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  122. Rockwood TH, Church JM, Fleshman JW, Kane RL, Mavrantonis C, Thorson AG, et al. Patient and surgeon ranking of the severity of symptoms associated with fecal incontinence. Diseases Colon Rectum. 1999;42(12):1525–31.

  123. Cotterill N, Norton C, Avery KN, Abrams P, Donovan JL. Psychometric evaluation of a new patient-completed questionnaire for evaluating anal incontinence symptoms and impact on quality of life: the ICIQ-B. Diseases Colon Rectum. 2011;54(10):1235–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  124. Markland AD, Burgio KL, Beasley TM, David SL, Redden DT, Goode PS. Psychometric evaluation of an online and paper accidental bowel leakage questionnaire: the ICIQ-B questionnaire. Neurourol Urodynam. 2017;36(1):166–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  125. Knowles CH, Eccersley AJ, Scott SM, Walker SM, Reeves B, Lunniss PJ. Linear discriminant analysis of symptoms in patients with chronic constipation. Diseases Colon Rectum. 2000;43(10):1419–26.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  126. Bugg GJ, Kiff ES, Hosker G. A new condition-specific health-related quality of life questionnaire for the assessment of women with anal incontinence. British J Obstet Gynaecol. 2001;108(10):1057–67.

    Google Scholar 

  127. Kwon S, Visco AG, Fitzgerald MP, Ye W, Whitehead WE. Pelvic floor disorders network. Validity and reliability of the modified Manchester health questionnaire in assessing patients with fecal incontinence. Diseases Colon Rectum. 2005;48(2):323–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  128. Frank L, Kleinman L, Farup C, Taylor L, Miner P. Psychometric validation of a constipation symptom assessment questionnaire. Scandinavian J Gastroenterol. 1999;34(9):870–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  129. Maeda Y, Parés D, Norton C, Vaizey CJ, Kamm MA. Does the St. Mark’s incontinence score reflect patients’ perceptions? A review of 390 patients. Diseases Colon Rectum. 2008;51(4):436–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  130. Roos AM, Sultan AH, Thakar R. St. Mark’s incontinence score for assessment of anal incontinence following obstetric anal sphincter injuries (OASIS). Int Urogynecol J 2009;20(4):407–410.

  131. Jorge JM, Wexner SD. Etiology and management of fecal incontinence. Diseases Colon Rectum. 1993;36(1):77–97.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  132. Rogers RG, Kammerer-Doak D, Villarreal A, Coates K, Qualls C. A new instrument to measure sexual function in women with urinary incontinence or pelvic organ prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001;184(4):552–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  133. Mamik MM, Rogers RG, Qualls CR, Morrow JD. The minimum important difference for the pelvic organ prolapse-urinary incontinence sexual function questionnaire. Intl Urogynecol J. 2014;25(10):1321–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  134. Rogers RG, Coates KW, Kammerer-Doak D, Khalsa S, Qualls C. A short form of the pelvic organ prolapse/urinary incontinence sexual questionnaire (PISQ-12). Intl Urogynecol J. 2003;14(3):164–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  135. Parnell BA, Dunivan GC, Connolly A, Jannelli ML, Wells EC, Geller EJ. Validation of web-based administration of the pelvic organ prolapse/urinary incontinence sexual function questionnaire (PISQ-12). Int Urogynecol J. 2011;22(3):357–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  136. Rogers RG, Rockwood TH, Constantine ML, Thakar R, Kammerer-Doak DN, Pauls RN, et al. A new measure of sexual function in women with pelvic floor disorders (PFD): the pelvic organ prolapse/incontinence sexual questionnaire, IUGA-revised (PISQ-IR). Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24(7):1091–103.

  137. Rockwood TH, Constantine ML, Adegoke O, Rogers RG, McDermott E, Davila GW, et al. The PISQ-IR: considerations in scale scoring and development. Intl Urogynecol J. 2013;24(7):1105–22.

  138. Baessler K, O'Neill SM, Maher CF, Battistutta D. An interviewer-administered validated female pelvic floor questionnaire for community-based research. Menopause. 2008;15(5):973–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  139. Baessler K, O’Neill SM, Maher CF, Battistutta D. Australian pelvic floor questionnaire: a validated interviewer-administered pelvic floor questionnaire for routine clinic and research. Intl Urogynecol J. 2009;20(2):149–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  140. Baessler K, O’Neill SM, Maher CF, Battistutta D. A validated self-administered female pelvic floor questionnaire. Intl Urogynecol J. 2010;21(2):163–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  141. Lin KY, Frawley HC, Granger CL, Denehy L. The Australian pelvic floor questionnaire is a valid measure of pelvic floor symptoms in patients following surgery for colorectal cancer. Neurourol Urodynam. 2017;36(5):1395–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  142. Baessler K, Mowat A, Maher CF. The minimal important difference of the Australian pelvic floor questionnaire. Intl Urogynecol J. 2019;30(1):115–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  143. Hiller L, Radley S, Mann CH, Radley SC, Begum G, Pretlove SJ, et al. Development and validation of a questionnaire for the assessment of bowel and lower urinary tract symptoms in women. BJOG: Intl J Obstet Gynaecol. 2002;109(4):413–23.

  144. Hiller L, Bradshaw HD, Radley SC, Radley S. A scoring system for the assessment of bowel and lower urinary tract symptoms in women. BJOG: Intl J Obstet Gynaecol. 2002;109(4):424–30.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  145. Hiller L, Bradshaw HD, Radley SC, Radley S. Criterion validity of the BBUSQ-22: a questionnaire assessing bowel and urinary tract symptoms in women. Intl Urogynecol J. 2007;18(10):1133–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  146. Radley SC, Jones GL, Tanguy EA, Stevens VG, Nelson C, Mathers NJ. Computer interviewing in urogynaecology: concept, development and psychometric testing of an electronic pelvic floor assessment questionnaire in primary and secondary care. BJOG: Intl J Obstet Gynaecol. 2006;113(2):231–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  147. Jones GL, Radley SC, Lumb J, Jha S. Electronic pelvic floor symptoms assessment: tests of data quality of ePAQ-PF. Intl Urogynecol J. 2008;19(10):1337–47.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  148. Jones GL, Radley SC, Lumb J, Farkas A. Responsiveness of the electronic personal assessment questionnaire-pelvic floor (ePAQ-PF). Int Urogynecol J. 2009;20(5):557–64.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  149. Dua A, Jones G, Wood H, Sidhu H. Understanding women’s experiences of electronic interviewing during the clinical episode in urogynaecology: a qualitative study. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24(11):1969–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  150. McCooty S, Nightingale P, Latthe P. The predictive value of ePAQ in the urodynamic diagnoses—a prospective cohort study. Neurourol Urodynam. 2018;37(1):169–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  151. Scurr K, Gray TG, Jones GL, Radley SC. Development and initial psychometric testing of a body-image domain within an electronic pelvic floor questionnaire (ePAQ-pelvic floor). Intl Urogynecol J. 2020;3:1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  152. Lukacz ES, Lawrence JM, Buckwalter JG, Burchette RJ, Nager CW, Luber KM. Epidemiology of prolapse and incontinence questionnaire: validation of a new epidemiologic survey. Intl Urogynecol J. 2005;16(4):272–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  153. Harvey MA, Kristjansson B, Griffith D, Versi E. The incontinence impact questionnaire and the urogenital distress inventory: a revisit of their validity in women without a urodynamic diagnosis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001;185(1):25–30.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  154. Hagen S, Hanley J, Capewell A. Test-retest reliability, validity, and sensitivity to change of the urogenital distress inventory and the incontinence impact questionnaire. Neurourol Urodynam: Off J Intl Continence Soc. 2002;21(6):534–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  155. Burgio KL, Goode PS, Richter HE, Locher JL, Roth DL. Global ratings of patient satisfaction and perceptions of improvement with treatment for urinary incontinence: validation of three global patient ratings. Neurourol Urodynam: Off J Intl Continence Soc. 2006;25(5):411–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  156. Uebersax JS, Wyman JF, Shumaker SA, McClish DK. Short forms to assess life quality and symptom distress for urinary incontinence in women: the incontinence impact questionnaire and the urogenital distress inventory. Neurourol Urodynam. 1995;14(2):131–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  157. Robinson D, Pearce KF. Relationship between patient reports of urinary incontinence symptoms and quality of life measures. Obstet Gynecol. 1998;91(2):224–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  158. FitzGerald MP, Kenton K, Shott S, Brubaker L. Responsiveness of quality of life measurements to change after reconstructive pelvic surgery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001;185(1):20–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  159. FitzGerald MP, Brubaker L. Urinary incontinence symptom scores and urodynamic diagnoses. Neurourol Urodynam: Off J Int Continence Soc. 2002;21(1):30–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  160. Barber MD, Kuchibhatla MN, Pieper CF, Bump RC. Psychometric evaluation of 2 comprehensive condition-specific quality of life instruments for women with pelvic floor disorders. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001;185(6):1388–95.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  161. Barber MD, Walters MD, Cundiff GW. PESSRI trial group. Responsiveness of the pelvic floor distress inventory (PFDI) and pelvic floor impact questionnaire (PFIQ) in women undergoing vaginal surgery and pessary treatment for pelvic organ prolapse. Am JObstet Gynecol. 2006;194(5):1492–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  162. Barber MD, Spino C, Janz NK, Brubaker L, Nygaard I, Nager CW, et al. Pelvic floor disorders network. The minimum important differences for the urinary scales of the pelvic floor distress inventory and pelvic floor impact questionnaire. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;200(5):580–e1.

  163. Barber MD, Walters MD, Bump RC. Short forms of two condition-specific quality-of-life questionnaires for women with pelvic floor disorders (PFDI-20 and PFIQ-7). Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;193(1):103–13.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  164. Geller EJ, Barbee ER, Wu JM, Loomis MJ, Visco AG. Validation of telephone administration of 2 condition-specific quality-of-life questionnaires. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007;197(6):632–e1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  165. Handa VL, Barber MD, Young SB, Aronson MP, Morse A, Cundiff GW. Paper versus web-based administration of the pelvic floor distress inventory 20 and pelvic floor impact questionnaire 7. Intl Urogynecol J. 2008;19(10):1331–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  166. Barber MD, Chen Z, Lukacz E, Markland A, Wai C, Brubaker L, et al. Further validation of the short form versions of the pelvic floor distress inventory (PFDI) and pelvic floor impact questionnaire (PFIQ). Neurourol Urodynam. 2011;30(4):541–6.

  167. Harvie HS, Arya LA, Saks EK, Sammel MD, Schwartz JS, Shea JA. Utility preference score measurement in women with fecal incontinence. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;204(1):72–e1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  168. Harvie HS, Shea JA, Andy UU, Propert K, Schwartz JS, Arya LA. Validity of utility measures for women with urge, stress, and mixed urinary incontinence. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;210(1):85–e1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  169. Voorham-van der Zalm PJ, Berzuk K, Shelly B, Kamin B, Putter H, Nijeholt GA LA, et al. Validation of the pelvic floor inventories Leiden (PelFIs) in English. Neurourol Urodynam. 2011;30(4):536–40.

  170. Peterson TV, Karp DR, Aguilar VC, Davila GW. Validation of a global pelvic floor symptom bother questionnaire. Intl Urogynecol J. 2010;21(9):1129–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  171. Bradshaw HD, Hiller L, Farkas AG, Radley S, Radley SC. Development and psychometric testing of a symptom index for pelvic organ prolapse. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2006;26(3):241–52.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  172. Lemack GE, Zimmern PE. Predictability of urodynamic findings based on the urogenital distress Inventory-6 questionnaire. Urology. 1999;54(3):461–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  173. Bump RC. The POP-Q system: two decades of progress and debate. Intl Urogynecol J. 2014;25(4):441–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  174. Uren AD, Cotterill N, Pardoe M, Abrams P. The international consultation on incontinence questionnaires (ICIQ): an update on status and direction. Neurourol Urodynam. 2020;39(6):1889–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  175. Uren AD, Cotterill N, Harding C, Hillary C, Chapple C, Lasch K, et al. The development of the ICIQ-UAB: a patient reported outcome measure for underactive bladder. Neurourol Urodynam. 2019;38(3):996–1004.

  176. Chapple CR, Drake MJ, Van Kerrebroeck P, Cardozo L, Drogendijk T, Klaver M, et al. Total urgency and frequency score as a measure of urgency and frequency in overactive bladder and storage lower urinary tract symptoms. BJU Intl. 2014;113(5):696–703.

  177. Haab F, Richard F, Amarenco G, Coloby P, Arnould B, Benmedjahed K, et al. Comprehensive evaluation of bladder and urethral dysfunction symptoms: development and psychometric validation of the urinary symptom profile (USP) questionnaire. Urology. 2008;71(4):646–56.

  178. Marquis P, De La Loge C, Dubois D, McDermott A, Chassany O. Development and validation of the patient assessment of constipation quality of life questionnaire. Scandinavian J Gastroenterol. 2005;40(5):540–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  179. Amarenco G, Arnould B, Carita P, Haab F, Labat JJ, Richard F. European psychometric validation of the CONTILIFE®: a quality of life questionnaire for urinary incontinence. European Urol. 2003;43(4):391–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  180. Hambleton RK, Swaminathan H. Item response theory: Principles and applications. Springer Science & Business Media: New York; 2013. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-1988-9.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urogynaecology and Pelvic Reconstructive Surgery, Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, c/o Secretary, Room 27.3.024, Level Three, West Block, Colney Lane, Norwich, Norfolk, NR4 7UY, UK

    Thomas G. Gray

  2. Department of Urogynaecology, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, UK

    Holly Vickers & Swati Jha

  3. Department of Urogynaecology, Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, G51 4TF, Glasgow, UK

    Priyanka Krishnaswamy

Authors
  1. Thomas G. Gray
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Holly Vickers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Priyanka Krishnaswamy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Swati Jha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas G. Gray.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Brief summary

85 English-language PROMs with published psychometric data are available to assess symptoms in a urogynaecology population. Formal recommendations on which PROMs to use are required.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gray, T.G., Vickers, H., Krishnaswamy, P. et al. A systematic review of English language patient-reported outcome measures for use in urogynaecology and female pelvic medicine. Int Urogynecol J 32, 2033–2092 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-021-04810-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-021-04810-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation