You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Psychometric properties of the incontinence utility index among patients with idiopathic overactive bladder: data from two multicenter, double-blind, randomized, Phase 3, placebo-controlled clinical trials
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, August 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12955-015-0306-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Nacho Castejón, Kristin Khalaf, Quanhong Ni, Jesús Cuervo, Donald L Patrick |
| Abstract |
Overactive bladder is a prevalent and burdensome condition. Generic utility measures may fail to reflect its full impact on patients' health status. The Incontinence Utility Index (IUI) is a community-based preference index derived from the Incontinence Quality of Life Questionnaire (I-QOL) developed to value health states related to urinary symptoms in patients with neurogenic detrusor overactivity. This study assessed the measurement properties of the IUI in patients with idiopathic overactive bladder (OAB). Data were used from two clinical trials which recruited patients with OAB whose symptoms were inadequately managed with ≥1 anticholinergic medication. Psychometric evaluation included: Differential Item Functioning (DIF) analysis, concordance between I-QOL and IUI (Intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC], criterion and convergent validity according to relevant patient reported outcomes and clinical variables (Spearman's correlation coefficient, rho), responsiveness, and agreement between utility measures (ICC and Bland-Altman method). A total of 1,105 idiopathic OAB patients were included. Mean age (range) was 60.4 years (18-90), 87.8 % (n = 970) were female. DIF was identified in 3 items, none of which are contained in the IUI. ICC (CI95 %) was 0.944 (0.936-0.950). Statistically significant differences (p < 0.001) were found in IUI scores for patients improving according to the Treatment Benefit Scale (TBS). Moderate to strong correlations (rho > |0.6|) were found in the expected direction with daily incontinence, urgency episodes and disease-specific domains of King's Health Questionnaire (KHQ). Low to moderate correlations (rho:<|0.6|) were found with Short Form version 2 (SF-12v2) summary components. A large effect size was found for patients reporting improvement (0.98-1.21) or great improvement (1.87-2.56) in the TBS, as well as in patients responding to treatment (1.19-2.40). Across utility measures, directional trends were consistent with OAB symptom profile, however, a lack of agreement in absolute values was observed. The IUI presents good psychometric properties for valuing the impact of UI-related problems in idiopathic OAB patients. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00910845 and NCT00910520 . |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 50% |
| Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 49 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 8 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 8% |
| Professor | 2 | 4% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 5 | 10% |
| Unknown | 21 | 43% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 24% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 6% |
| Psychology | 2 | 4% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 26 | 53% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 February 2016.
All research outputs
#13,442,631
of 22,818,766 outputs
Outputs from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#1,027
of 2,158 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#124,072
of 264,249 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#18
of 65 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,818,766 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,158 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 264,249 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 65 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.