The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Validation of a severity index in female urinary incontinence and its implementation in an epidemiological survey.
Open accessAbstract
STUDY OBJECTIVE--The aim was to validate a simple severity index of female urinary incontinence for subsequent use in an epidemiological survey. DESIGN--The index was created by multiplying the reported frequency (four levels) by the amount of leakage (two levels). The resulting index value (1-8) was further categorised into slight (1-2), moderate (3-4), and severe (6-8). It was validated against a 48 hour "pad weighing" test. Thereafter, an anonymous postal questionnaire survey was performed and the index was used to assess the severity of the leakage. A question about the impact of incontinence was also included. SETTING--The outpatient clinic of the Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Trondheim University Hospital and the rural community of Rissa, Norway. PARTICIPANTS--Altogether 116 incontinent women referred to the clinic by their GP and all 2366 adult women living in Rissa. RESULTS--The difference in median pad weights between moderate and slight incontinence was 9g/24h (95% confidence interval 0-27). The corresponding difference between severe and moderate incontinence was 17g/24h (95% CI 5-30). In the epidemiological survey 29.4% reported urinary incontinence (response rate 77%). The prevalence tended to be highest in middle life and old age. Forty six per cent were classified as slight, 27% moderate, and 27% severe. There was a strong correlation between severity and impact (R = 0.59, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION--The severity index may be a useful tool for assessing the severity of female urinary incontinence in epidemiological surveys. It is confirmed that urinary incontinence is very prevalent in adult women, but most should not be regarded as potential patients.
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
Cited by
A Phase II Trial of Tideglusib in Alzheimer's Disease
Lovestone, S., for the ARGO investigators, Boada, M., Dubois, B., Hüll, M., Rinne, J. O., Huppertz, H.-J., Calero, M., Andrés, M. V., Gómez-Carrillo, B., et al. (2015) · Journal of Alzheimer's Disease · doi:10.3233/jad-141959 · Cited by 536
Urinary Incontinence in US Women: A Population-Based Study
Melville, J. L. (2005) · Archives of Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/archinte.165.5.537 · Cited by 482
A Randomized Trial of Urodynamic Testing before Stress-Incontinence Surgery
Nager, C. W., Brubaker, L., Litman, H. J., Zyczynski, H. M., Varner, R. E., Amundsen, C., Sirls, L. T., Norton, P. A., Arisco, A. M., Chai, T. C., et al. (2012) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1113595 · Cited by 466
Barber, M. D., Brubaker, L., Burgio, K. L., Richter, H. E., Nygaard, I., Weidner, A. C., Menefee, S. A., Lukacz, E. S., Norton, P., Schaffer, J., et al. (2014) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2014.1719 · Cited by 428
Nilsson, C. G., Palva, K., Rezapour, M., & Falconer, C. (2008) · International Urogynecology Journal · doi:10.1007/s00192-008-0666-z · Cited by 396
Metadata
- Authors
- Sandvik, H., Hunskaar, S., Seim, A., Hermstad, R., Vanvik, A., & Bratt, H.
- Venue
- Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 1993-12
- Volume
- 47
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 497-499
- ISSN
- 0141-7681 (ISSN-L)
- 0143-005X
- 1470-2738
- OpenAlex
- W2097962014
- Cited by
- 517
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 3.61
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Validation of a severity index in female urinary incontinence and its implementation in an epidemiological survey. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/jech.47.6.497
- The paper
- Sandvik, H., Hunskaar, S., Seim, A., Hermstad, R., Vanvik, A., & Bratt, H. (1993). Validation of a severity index in female urinary incontinence and its implementation in an epidemiological survey. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.47.6.497
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.