Diagnostic scores, questionnaires, quality of life, and outcome measures in pediatric continence: A review of available tools from the International Children's Continence Society. Issue 2 (April 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Chase, Janet; Bower, Wendy; Gibb, Susan; Schaeffer, Anthony; von Gontard, Alexander
• Is Part Of: Journal of pediatric urology. Volume 14:Issue 2(2018)
• Page Start: 98
• Page End: 107
• Publication Date: 2018-04
• Subjects: Children -- Bladder dysfunction -- Bowel dysfunction -- Incontinence -- Behavioral -- Quality of life; Pediatric urology -- Periodicals; Urologic Diseases -- Periodicals; Urogenital Diseases -- Periodicals; Urologic Surgical Procedures -- Periodicals; Child; Infant; Urologie pédiatrique -- Périodiques; Appareil urinaire -- Maladies -- Périodiques; Pédiatrie; Urologie; Pediatric urology; Périodique électronique (Descripteur de forme); Ressource Internet (Descripteur de forme); Electronic journals; Periodicals; Electronic journals; 618.926
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jpurol.2017.12.003
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1477-5131

Abstract

Summary: Purpose: We reviewed and collated information concerning the available tools for the measurement of symptoms and outcomes in pediatric continence. Materials and methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINHAL databases were searched for relevant articles published prior to December 2016 and independently screened by two researchers. Expert opinion was also widely sought through consultation with the ICCS Board membership and their professional networks and the multidisciplinary authorship group. The most relevant materials were then selected for analysis and inclusion and resulted in a document available on the ICCS website for all members to review. Insights and feedback were considered with consensus and agreement reached to modify the document. Results and conclusions: A variety of useful tools for the assessment and measurement of bladder and bowel dysfunction and quality of life and behavioral comorbidities are presented together with their indications and potential pitfalls. ICCS cannot recommend one over another as the most useful for each clinician will vary depending on the clinical setting, available time, and patient population. We provide a framework for choosing those that are most appropriate based on our findings.