Price Danielle Markle, Noblett Karen
University of California, Irvine, Department of Ob/Gyn, Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, Orange, CA 92868, USA.
Int Urogynecol J. 2012 Apr;23(4):429-33. doi: 10.1007/s00192-011-1602-1. Epub 2011 Nov 16.
The 24-h pad test and cough stress test are commonly used to assess stress urinary incontinence; however, no comparative data are available. The cough stress test is superior to the 24-h pad test.
Women with predominant stress urinary incontinence symptoms underwent a cough stress test, a 24-h pad test, and urodynamic testing.
Complete data were available on 55 women. Agreement between the urodynamic results and the stress test occurred in 89% of women (k = 0.51). Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were 90%, 80%, 98%, and 44%. Agreement between the urodynamic results and the pad test occurred in 60% of women (k = 0.08). Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were 60%, 60%, 94%, and 13%. Agreement between the cough stress test and the pad test occurred in 67% (k = 0.26).
The cough stress test is more reliable than the pad test for documentation of stress urinary incontinence.
24小时护垫试验和咳嗽压力试验常用于评估压力性尿失禁；然而，尚无比较数据。咳嗽压力试验优于24小时护垫试验。
以压力性尿失禁症状为主的女性接受咳嗽压力试验、24小时护垫试验和尿动力学检查。
55名女性有完整数据。尿动力学结果与压力试验结果的一致性在89%的女性中出现（k = 0.51）。敏感性、特异性、阳性预测值和阴性预测值分别为90%、80%、98%和44%。尿动力学结果与护垫试验结果的一致性在60%的女性中出现（k = 0.08）。敏感性、特异性、阳性预测值和阴性预测值分别为60%、60%、94%和13%。咳嗽压力试验与护垫试验结果的一致性在67%的女性中出现（k = 0.26）。
咳嗽压力试验在记录压力性尿失禁方面比护垫试验更可靠。
