The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A new questionnaire to assess the quality of life of urinary incontinent women
Abstract
Objectives To design and validate a condition‐specific quality of life questionnaire for the assessment of women with urinary incontinence, and to use the questionnaire to assess the quality of life of women with specific urodynamic diagnoses. Setting A tertiary referral Urogynaecology unit at King's College Hospital, London Design The questionnaire was designed following six different pilot studies; in this study it was tested for validity and reliability using standard psychometric techniques. The questionnaire was used in 293 consecutive women referred for investigation of urinary incontinence. Results The questionnaire was shown to be reliable both by test‐retest analysis and by measurement of its internal consistency. The construct of the questionnaire and the answers by respondents confirmed its face and content validity. Criterion validity was measured by correlation with scores obtained on a validated generic measure of quality of life, the Short Form 36. Women with detrusor instability had greater quality of life impairment than women with other urodynamic diagnoses. Conclusion The questionnaire was easy for the women to use and was a valid and reliable instrument for the assessment of quality of life in women with urinary incontinence. It will be useful for the rapid appraisal and follow up of women with urinary incontinence in many different clinical settings, including the evaluation of new treatments of urinary incontinence in controlled clinical trials.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Construct validity in psychological tests.
Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0040957 · Cited by 11,195
Reliability and Validity Assessment
Carmines, E., & Zeller, R. (1979) · doi:10.4135/9781412985642 · Cited by 5,884
Cited by
Dumoulin, C., Cacciari, L. P., & Hay-Smith, E. J. C. (2018) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd005654.pub4 · Cited by 486
Conservative prevention and management of pelvic organ prolapse in women
Hagen, S., & Stark, D. (2011) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd003882.pub4 · Cited by 326
Brookes, S. T., Donovan, J. L., Wright, M., Jackson, S., & Abrams, P. (2004) · American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2003.12.027 · Cited by 309
Milani, R., Salvatore, S., Soligo, M., Pifarotti, P., Meschia, M., & Cortese, M. (2005) · BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology · doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2004.00332.x · Cited by 290
Self-citationMobile app for treatment of stress urinary incontinence: A randomized controlled trial
Asklund, I., Nyström, E., Sjöström, M., Umefjord, G., Stenlund, H., & Samuelsson, E. (2017) · Neurourology and Urodynamics · doi:10.1002/nau.23116 · Cited by 183
Metadata
- Authors
- Kelleher, C. J., Cardozo, L. D., Khullar, V., & Salvatore, S.
- Venue
- BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1997-12
- Volume
- 104
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 1374-1379
- ISSN
- 0306-5456 (ISSN-L)
- 1470-0328
- 1471-0528
- OpenAlex
- W2023110392
- Cited by
- 1,129
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 5.89
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A new questionnaire to assess the quality of life of urinary incontinent women. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1471-0528.1997.tb11006.x
- The paper
- Kelleher, C. J., Cardozo, L. D., Khullar, V., & Salvatore, S. (1997). A new questionnaire to assess the quality of life of urinary incontinent women. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.1997.tb11006.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.