Neurourology and Urodynamics 26:456 (2007)
EDITORIAL COMMENT
Re: Burgio KL, Goode PS, Richter HE, et al. 2006. Global Ratings ofPatient Satisfaction and Perceptions of Improvement With Treatmentfor Urinary Incontinence: Validation of Three Global Patient Ratings.
Neurourol Urodynam 25:411–417
To the Editor:
Although urinary incontinence is a major health concern,research measures of successful treatment are limited. As newsurgical or pharmacologic treatments for incontinence aredeveloped, it is important to have reliable and valid instru-ments to measure a broad range of outcomes. Outcomemeasures have evolved from urodynamic studies in alaboratory setting as the ‘‘gold standard’’ to the developmentof bladder diaries to measure change in frequency ofincontinent episodes as the primary outcome used in mostrandomized controlled trials. More recently, a number ofcondition-specific measures have been developed that addresssymptom bothersomeness and the effect of urinary incon-tinence on health-related quality of life. These instrumentshave been shown to be reliable, responsive to change overtime, and valid. However, measures from the patient’sperspective are limited. In this current article, Burgio et al.report a methodologically sound analysis of the validity ofpatient global ratings of treatments for urinary incontinence
in three separate randomized controlled trials. The findingsshow persuasively that patient global ratings of satisfaction,perception of improvement, and estimated percent improve-ment are valid outcome measures. Expanding the dimensionsof outcome measures to include patient global ratings is asignificant addition to our research literature. Not all researchtools are useful in clinical practice. These patient globalratings certainly are applicable and feasible in our clinicalpractices. The uniqueness of these tools are their simplicityand reflection of what we commonly ask our patients whenassisting patients with management of their incontinence,‘‘Are you satisfied, do you feel better, and how much better?’’.Congratulations to the Burgio group for their ongoingmethodological work.
Jeanette S. Brown, MD*UCSF Women’s Health
Clinical Research CenterSan Francisco, California
No conflict of interest reported by the author(s).*Correspondence to: Jeanette S. Brown, UCSF Women’s Health Clinical ResearchCenter, 1635 Divisadero Street, Suite 600, San Francisco, CA 94115.E-mail: [email protected] online 15 February 2007 in Wiley InterScience(www.interscience.wiley.com)DOI 10.1002/nau.20294
� 2007 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
Recommended
