Epidemiology of prolapse and incontinence questionnaire: validation of a new epidemiologic survey.
Abstract
The epidemiology of prolapse and incontinence questionnaire (EPIQ) was developed to screen for female pelvic floor disorders (PFD). Content and face validity, reliability, internal consistency and criterion validity of the EPIQ to detect the presence of pelvic organ prolapse (POP), stress urinary incontinence (SUI), overactive bladder (OAB) and anal incontinence (AI) is presented. Cronbach's alpha; Spearman's, kappa, intraclass correlations, factor analysis and Chi-Squared tests were used for analysis. Questions related to PFD proved internally consistent (alpha = 0.91) and reproducible (correlations >0.70) for all but three items on the EPIQ. Positive and negative predictive values of the EPIQ to detect PFD were: POP = 76% and 97%, SUI = 88% and 87%, OAB = 77% and 90% and AI = 61% and 91% respectively. EPIQ is a psychometrically validated screening instrument that may identify women at high risk of having pelvic floor disorders in large undiagnosed populations.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Agreement between maternal recall and obstetrical medical record information for birth mode is excellent.
“because it has been demonstrated that the agreement between maternal recall and obstetrical medical record information for birth mode is excellent.7”
From Association of Delivery Mode With Pelvic Floor Disorders After Childbirth. (2018) · cites this paper as [7]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 46 · Cited by 131
- Authors
- Lukacz, E. S., Lawrence, J. M., Buckwalter, J. G., Burchette, R. J., Nager, C. W., & Luber, K. M.
- Affiliations
- University of California San Diego (US)
- Kaiser Permanente (US)
- Corresponding author
- Lukacz, Emily S.
- Venue
- International Urogynecology Journal
- Published
- 2005-04-26
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 272-284
- ISSN
- 0937-3462 (ISSN-L)
- 1433-3023
- OpenAlex
- W2072024246
- Cited by
- 131
- References
- 46
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 9
- FWCI
- 3.09
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- International Urogynecology Journal (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Kaiser Permanente
- National Institutes of Health (5r01hd041113-03)
- Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R01 HD041113)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Rheumatology › Pelvic floor disorders treatments
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Urology › Urinary Bladder and Prostate Research
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Sexual function and dysfunction studies
- Keywords
- female pelvic floor dysfunction, pelvic organ prolapse, stress urinary incontinence, overactive bladder, anal incontinence, screening tool validation, psychometric properties, predictive value, women's health
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, California, Fecal Incontinence, Female, Humans, Mass Screening, Middle Aged, Predictive Value of Tests, Psychometrics, Surveys and Questionnaires, Sensitivity and Specificity, Urinary Incontinence, Urinary Incontinence, Stress, Uterine Prolapse, Reproducibility of Results, Epidemiologic Studies, Pelvic Floor, Statistics, Nonparametric
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
