What are the best outcome measures when assessing treatments for LUTD?-achieving the most out of outcome evaluation: ICI-RS 2011

• Published in: Neurourology and urodynamics 2012-03, Vol.31 (3), p.400-403
• Main Authors: Cotterill, N., Goldman, H., Kelleher, Con, Kopp, Zoe, Tubaro, Andrea, Brubaker, Linda
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Diagnostic Techniques, Urological; Endpoint Determination; Evidence-Based Medicine; Health Status Indicators; Humans; lower urinary tract dysfunction; Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms - diagnosis; Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms - physiopathology; Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms - therapy; outcome assessment; patient reported outcomes; Predictive Value of Tests; questionnaires; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Surveys and Questionnaires; Treatment Outcome
• ISSN: 0733-2467; 1520-6777
• DOI: 10.1002/nau.22210

A think tank was convened at the third ICI‐RS meeting held in the UK, June 2011, to consider the best outcome measures when assessing treatments for lower urinary tract dysfunction (LUTD). Given the vast array of measures available a focus on questionnaires was decided upon, which continued to highlight a plethora of available tools. The decision was therefore taken to approach this topic from an alternative perspective and instead ask the audience of gathered experts in this field to consider, “What we need to ask as a minimum in order to capture the most fundamental parameters when evaluating new treatments for LUTD?” Discussions highlighted the need for inclusion of a global measure in all outcome evaluations in order to increase comparability between different treatment evaluations and different populations. More specific categories of evaluation identified were: treatment satisfaction, symptom quantification, health related quality of life and adverse events. Further optional components were identified for inclusion where relevant, such as health economic, goal setting and psychosocial evaluation. A “Minimum Outcome Set for Testing (MOST)” was therefore proposed by selecting a health outcome measure from each category while not being prescriptive about specific outcome measurement selection. The ‘MOST’ toolkit is therefore proposed to promote standardized evaluation in this field and represents a useful starting point for further consideration of this concept. Neurourol. Urodynam. 31:400–403, 2012. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.