Now processing ... 
 Now searching ... 
 Now loading ... 

過活動膀胱診療のアルゴリズム

出典
img
1: 日本排尿機能学会編:過活動膀胱診療ガイドライン 第2版.2015年、 リッチヒルメディカル,p12 図3 ©日本排尿機能学会

尿失禁に関するスコア化された問診票

腹圧性尿失禁スコア(stress score)と切迫性尿失禁スコア(urge score)で構成されており、この問診票より得られたスコアをプロットし、領域a、b、cは腹圧性尿失禁、領域g、i、jは切迫性尿失禁、領域e、f、hは混合性尿失禁と診断される[1]。さらに、この問診票は重症度判定にも有用であることが報告されている[2]。腹圧性尿失禁ではstress scoreが10~17で軽症、18~23で中等症、24~26で重症と判定でき、切迫性尿失禁ではurge scoreが12~18で軽症、19~22で中等症と判定できる。
出典
imgimg
1: Classification of female urinary incontinence by the scored incontinence questionnaire.
著者: O Ishiko, T Sumi, K Hirai, S Ogita
雑誌名: Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2000 Jun;69(3):255-60.
Abstract/Text: OBJECTIVES: Our purpose was to investigate whether urinary incontinence (UI) severity could be graded by UI scores.
METHODS: The study included 168 UI patients diagnosed by conventional procedures as stress incontinence (SI, n=108) or urge incontinence (URI, n=60). A questionnaire containing 15 items scored for stress-score (s-s) and urge-score (u-s) was administered to patients to assess the correlation between pad test values (PTVs) and s-s in SI and u-s in URI.
RESULTS: Significant correlations were found between log[PTVs] and both s-s and u-s: log[PTV(SI)]=0.051s-s-0.207 (r=0.830, P<0.0001) and log[PTV(URI)]=0.064u-s-0.459 (r=0.827, P<0. 0001). Based on theoretical PTVs obtained using these equations, s-s of 26-24, 23-18, and 17-10 in SI were equivalent to severe, moderate, and mild, respectively, and u-s of 22-19 and 18-12 in URI were equivalent to moderate and mild, respectively, according to the classification of the International Continence Society.
CONCLUSION: The UI score should be a simple and useful procedure for use by general gynecologists to grade UI severity clinically.
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2000 Jun;69(3):255-60.
imgimg
2: The urinary incontinence score in the diagnosis of female urinary incontinence.
著者: O Ishiko, K Hirai, T Sumi, S Nishimura, S Ogita
雑誌名: Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2000 Feb;68(2):131-7.
Abstract/Text: OBJECTIVE: Our purpose was to determine whether the urinary incontinence (UI) score is significantly useful in evaluating the clinical status of UI.
METHOD: The questionnaire was administered to 198 UI patients (27-73 years of age) diagnosed by conventional procedures. It consisted of 15 questions, and the answers were assigned points divided into a stress score (s-s) and urge score (u-s) according to severity.
RESULTS: The patients were classified into a stress incontinence group (SI; 125 cases), urge incontinence group (URI; 29 cases), mixed incontinence group (MI; 41 cases), and overflow incontinence group (3 cases). Classification by questionnaire yielded 110 SI cases, 31 URI cases, and 46 MI cases, accuracy of 83.2%, 86.2%, and 61.0%, respectively. A significant correlation was observed with s-s of SI (r = 0.669, P < 0.001) and u-s of URI (r = 0.583, P < 0.005).
CONCLUSION: The UI score will be a simple, clinically effective diagnostic procedure for UI for use by general gynecologists.
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2000 Feb;68(2):131-7.

過活動膀胱症状質問票(OABSS)

「質問3」が2点以上かつ合計点数が3点以上あれば、OABと診断される。また、合計点数が5点以下を軽症、6~11点を中等症、12点以上を重症と評価することができる。
出典
img
1: 日本排尿機能学会:過活動膀胱診療ガイドライン第2版. P105, リッチヒルメディカル,2015

女性下部尿路症状診療のアルゴリズム

出典
img
1: 日本排尿機能学会:女性下部尿路症状診療ガイドライン. P2, リッチヒルメディカル,2013

過活動膀胱診療のアルゴリズム

出典
img
1: 日本排尿機能学会編:過活動膀胱診療ガイドライン 第2版.2015年、 リッチヒルメディカル,p12 図3 ©日本排尿機能学会

尿失禁に関するスコア化された問診票

腹圧性尿失禁スコア(stress score)と切迫性尿失禁スコア(urge score)で構成されており、この問診票より得られたスコアをプロットし、領域a、b、cは腹圧性尿失禁、領域g、i、jは切迫性尿失禁、領域e、f、hは混合性尿失禁と診断される[1]。さらに、この問診票は重症度判定にも有用であることが報告されている[2]。腹圧性尿失禁ではstress scoreが10~17で軽症、18~23で中等症、24~26で重症と判定でき、切迫性尿失禁ではurge scoreが12~18で軽症、19~22で中等症と判定できる。
出典
imgimg
1: Classification of female urinary incontinence by the scored incontinence questionnaire.
著者: O Ishiko, T Sumi, K Hirai, S Ogita
雑誌名: Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2000 Jun;69(3):255-60.
Abstract/Text: OBJECTIVES: Our purpose was to investigate whether urinary incontinence (UI) severity could be graded by UI scores.
METHODS: The study included 168 UI patients diagnosed by conventional procedures as stress incontinence (SI, n=108) or urge incontinence (URI, n=60). A questionnaire containing 15 items scored for stress-score (s-s) and urge-score (u-s) was administered to patients to assess the correlation between pad test values (PTVs) and s-s in SI and u-s in URI.
RESULTS: Significant correlations were found between log[PTVs] and both s-s and u-s: log[PTV(SI)]=0.051s-s-0.207 (r=0.830, P<0.0001) and log[PTV(URI)]=0.064u-s-0.459 (r=0.827, P<0. 0001). Based on theoretical PTVs obtained using these equations, s-s of 26-24, 23-18, and 17-10 in SI were equivalent to severe, moderate, and mild, respectively, and u-s of 22-19 and 18-12 in URI were equivalent to moderate and mild, respectively, according to the classification of the International Continence Society.
CONCLUSION: The UI score should be a simple and useful procedure for use by general gynecologists to grade UI severity clinically.
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2000 Jun;69(3):255-60.
imgimg
2: The urinary incontinence score in the diagnosis of female urinary incontinence.
著者: O Ishiko, K Hirai, T Sumi, S Nishimura, S Ogita
雑誌名: Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2000 Feb;68(2):131-7.
Abstract/Text: OBJECTIVE: Our purpose was to determine whether the urinary incontinence (UI) score is significantly useful in evaluating the clinical status of UI.
METHOD: The questionnaire was administered to 198 UI patients (27-73 years of age) diagnosed by conventional procedures. It consisted of 15 questions, and the answers were assigned points divided into a stress score (s-s) and urge score (u-s) according to severity.
RESULTS: The patients were classified into a stress incontinence group (SI; 125 cases), urge incontinence group (URI; 29 cases), mixed incontinence group (MI; 41 cases), and overflow incontinence group (3 cases). Classification by questionnaire yielded 110 SI cases, 31 URI cases, and 46 MI cases, accuracy of 83.2%, 86.2%, and 61.0%, respectively. A significant correlation was observed with s-s of SI (r = 0.669, P < 0.001) and u-s of URI (r = 0.583, P < 0.005).
CONCLUSION: The UI score will be a simple, clinically effective diagnostic procedure for UI for use by general gynecologists.
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2000 Feb;68(2):131-7.