Journals Library

An error occurred retrieving content to display, please try again.

Page not found (404)

Sorry - the page you requested could not be found.

Please choose a page from the navigation or try a website search above to find the information you need.

{{metadata.Title}}

{{metadata.Headline}}

{{author}}{{author}}{{($index < metadata.AuthorsAndEtalArray.length-1) ? ',' : '.'}}

Suneetha Rachaneni 1, Shanteela McCooty 2, Lee J Middleton 3, Victoria L Parker 3, Jane P Daniels 1,3,*, Arri Coomarasamy 1,2, Tina S Verghese 1,2, Moji Balogun 2, Ilias Goranitis 4, Pelham Barton 4, Tracy E Roberts 4, Jonathan J Deeks 3,5, Pallavi Latthe 1,2,

1 School of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
2 Birmingham Women’s NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK
3 Birmingham Clinical Trials Unit, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
4 Health Economics Unit, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
5 Public Health, Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
* Corresponding author Email: j.p.daniels@bham.ac.uk

{{metadata.Journal}} Volume: {{metadata.Volume}}, Issue: {{metadata.Issue}}, Published in {{metadata.PublicationDate | date:'MMMM yyyy'}}

https://doi.org/{{metadata.DOI}}

Citation: {{author}}{{ (($index < metadata.AuthorsArray.length-1) && ($index <=6)) ? ', ' : '' }}{{(metadata.AuthorsArray.length <= 6) ? '.' : '' }} {{(metadata.AuthorsArray.length > 6) ? 'et al.' : ''}} {{metadata.Title}}. {{metadata.JournalShortName}} {{metadata.PublicationDate | date:'yyyy'}};{{metadata.Volume}}({{metadata.Issue}})

You might also be interested in:
{{classification.Category.Concept}}

Report Content

The full text of this issue is available as a PDF document from the Toolkit section on this page.

The full text of this issue is available as a PDF document from the Toolkit section on this page.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Urodynamics (UDS) has been considered the gold standard test for detrusor overactivity (DO) in women with an overactive bladder (OAB). Bladder ultrasonography to measure bladder wall thickness (BWT) is less invasive and has been proposed as an alternative test.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the reliability, reproducibility, accuracy and acceptability of BWT in women with OAB, measured by ultrasonography, in the diagnosis of DO; to explore the role of UDS and its impact on treatment outcomes; and to conduct an economic evaluation of alternative care pathways.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional test accuracy study.

SETTING

22 UK hospitals.

PARTICIPANTS

687 women with OAB.

METHODS

BWT was measured using transvaginal ultrasonography, and DO was assessed using UDS, which was performed blind to ultrasonographic findings. Intraobserver and interobserver reproducibility were assessed by repeated measurements from scans in 37 and 57 women, respectively, and by repeated scans in 27 women. Sensitivity and specificity were computed at pre-specified thresholds. The smallest real differences detectable of BWT were estimated using one-way analysis of variance. The pain and acceptability of both tests were evaluated by a questionnaire. Patient symptoms were measured before testing and after 6 and 12 months using the International Consultation on Incontinence modular Questionnaire Overactive Bladder (short form) (ICIQ-OAB) questionnaire and a global impression of improvement elicited at 12 months. Interventions and patient outcomes were analysed according to urodynamic diagnoses and BWT measurements. A decision-analytic model compared the cost-effectiveness of care strategies using UDS, ultrasonography or clinical history, estimating the cost per woman successfully treated and the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY).

RESULTS

BWT showed very low sensitivity and specificity at all pre-specified cut-off points, and there was no evidence of discrimination at any threshold (pâ =â 0.25). Extensive sensitivity and subgroup analyses did not alter the interpretation of these findings. The smallest detectable difference in BWT was estimated to be 2â mm. Pain levels following both tests appeared relatively low. The proportion of women who found the test 'totally acceptable' was significantly higher with ultrasonography than UDS (81% vs. 56%; pâ <â 0.001). Overall, subsequent treatment was highly associated with urodynamic diagnosis (pâ <â 0.0001). There was no evidence that BWT had any relationship with the global impression of improvement responses at 20 months (pâ =â 0.4). Bladder ultrasonography was more costly and less effective than the other strategies. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of basing treatment on the primary clinical presentation compared with UDS was £491,500 per woman successfully treated and £60,200 per QALY. Performing a UDS in those women with a clinical history of mixed urinary incontinence had an ICER of £19,500 per woman successfully treated and £12,700 per QALY compared with the provision of urodynamic to all women. For DO cases detected, UDS was the most cost-effective strategy.

CONCLUSION

There was no evidence that BWT had any relationship with DO, regardless of the cut-off point, nor any relationship to symptoms as measured by the ICIQ-OAB. Bladder ultrasonography has no diagnostic or prognostic value as a test in this condition. Furthermore, despite its greater acceptability, BWT measurement was not sufficiently reliable or reproducible.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN46820623.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 7. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Urodynamics (UDS) has been considered the gold standard test for detrusor overactivity (DO) in women with an overactive bladder (OAB). Bladder ultrasonography to measure bladder wall thickness (BWT) is less invasive and has been proposed as an alternative test.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the reliability, reproducibility, accuracy and acceptability of BWT in women with OAB, measured by ultrasonography, in the diagnosis of DO; to explore the role of UDS and its impact on treatment outcomes; and to conduct an economic evaluation of alternative care pathways.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional test accuracy study.

SETTING

22 UK hospitals.

PARTICIPANTS

687 women with OAB.

METHODS

BWT was measured using transvaginal ultrasonography, and DO was assessed using UDS, which was performed blind to ultrasonographic findings. Intraobserver and interobserver reproducibility were assessed by repeated measurements from scans in 37 and 57 women, respectively, and by repeated scans in 27 women. Sensitivity and specificity were computed at pre-specified thresholds. The smallest real differences detectable of BWT were estimated using one-way analysis of variance. The pain and acceptability of both tests were evaluated by a questionnaire. Patient symptoms were measured before testing and after 6 and 12 months using the International Consultation on Incontinence modular Questionnaire Overactive Bladder (short form) (ICIQ-OAB) questionnaire and a global impression of improvement elicited at 12 months. Interventions and patient outcomes were analysed according to urodynamic diagnoses and BWT measurements. A decision-analytic model compared the cost-effectiveness of care strategies using UDS, ultrasonography or clinical history, estimating the cost per woman successfully treated and the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY).

RESULTS

BWT showed very low sensitivity and specificity at all pre-specified cut-off points, and there was no evidence of discrimination at any threshold (pâ =â 0.25). Extensive sensitivity and subgroup analyses did not alter the interpretation of these findings. The smallest detectable difference in BWT was estimated to be 2â mm. Pain levels following both tests appeared relatively low. The proportion of women who found the test 'totally acceptable' was significantly higher with ultrasonography than UDS (81% vs. 56%; pâ <â 0.001). Overall, subsequent treatment was highly associated with urodynamic diagnosis (pâ <â 0.0001). There was no evidence that BWT had any relationship with the global impression of improvement responses at 20 months (pâ =â 0.4). Bladder ultrasonography was more costly and less effective than the other strategies. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of basing treatment on the primary clinical presentation compared with UDS was £491,500 per woman successfully treated and £60,200 per QALY. Performing a UDS in those women with a clinical history of mixed urinary incontinence had an ICER of £19,500 per woman successfully treated and £12,700 per QALY compared with the provision of urodynamic to all women. For DO cases detected, UDS was the most cost-effective strategy.

CONCLUSION

There was no evidence that BWT had any relationship with DO, regardless of the cut-off point, nor any relationship to symptoms as measured by the ICIQ-OAB. Bladder ultrasonography has no diagnostic or prognostic value as a test in this condition. Furthermore, despite its greater acceptability, BWT measurement was not sufficiently reliable or reproducible.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN46820623.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 7. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

If you would like to receive a notification when this project publishes in the NIHR Journals Library, please submit your email address below.

 

Responses to this report

No responses have been published.

 

If you would like to submit a response to this publication, please do so using the form below:

Comments submitted to the NIHR Journals Library are electronic letters to the editor. They enable our readers to debate issues raised in research reports published in the Journals Library. We aim to post within 2 working days all responses that contribute substantially to the topic investigated, as determined by the Editors.

Your name and affiliations will be published with your comment.

Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. The Editors may add, remove, or edit comments at their absolute discretion.

By submitting your response, you are stating that you agree to the terms & conditions