title: Comparison of the cough stress test and 24-h pad test in the assessment of stress urinary incontinence.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  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.
  
  
  METHODS
  Women with predominant stress urinary incontinence symptoms underwent a cough stress test, a 24-h pad test, and urodynamic testing.
  
  
  RESULTS
  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).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The cough stress test is more reliable than the pad test for documentation of stress urinary incontinence.
authors.affiliation: University of California, Irvine, Department of Ob/Gyn, Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, Orange, CA 92868, USA. daniellemarkleprice@gmail.com
authors.forename: Danielle Markle
authors.initials: DM
authors.lastname: Price
authors.forename: Karen
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Noblett
mesh_terms: D000368:Aged; D003371:Cough; D005080:Exercise Test / Q000379:methods*; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D016496:Incontinence Pads; D008875:Middle Aged; D011237:Predictive Value of Tests; D011446:Prospective Studies; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity; D014550:Urinary Incontinence, Stress / Q000175:diagnosis* / Q000503:physiopathology*; D014563:Urodynamics / Q000502:physiology*
references.citation: Contemp Clin Trials. 2009 Nov;30(6):531-9
references.pmid: 19635587
references.citation: Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1996 Feb;103(2):162-7
references.pmid: 8616134
references.citation: Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996 Jul;175(1):10-7
references.pmid: 8694033
references.citation: BJOG. 2003 Jun;110(6):567-71
references.pmid: 12798473
references.citation: Int Urogynecol J. 2010 Jan;21(1):5-26
references.pmid: 19937315
references.citation: J Urol. 2000 Sep;164(3 Pt 1):698-701
references.pmid: 10953128
references.citation: Neurourol Urodyn. 2007;26(3):333-40
references.pmid: 17315221
references.citation: Obstet Gynecol. 1999 Jul;94(1):99-102
references.pmid: 10389726
references.citation: Urology. 2009 Aug;74(2):278-81
references.pmid: 19515404
references.citation: J Urol. 2007 May;177(5):1810-4
references.pmid: 17437826
references.citation: Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2005 Jan-Feb;16(1):63-8; discussion 68
references.pmid: 15647965
references.citation: Obstet Gynecol. 1988 Feb;71(2):257-60
references.pmid: 3336562
references.citation: Neurourol Urodyn. 2011 Mar;30(3):329-34
references.pmid: 21305591
references.citation: Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1989;68(3):211-5
references.pmid: 2618603
references.citation: Obstet Gynecol. 1995 Jul;86(1):85-91
references.pmid: 7784028
references.citation: Neurourol Urodyn. 1994;13(3):261-5
references.pmid: 7920683
references.citation: Br J Urol. 1991 Jun;67(6):569-72
references.pmid: 2070199
references.citation: J Urol. 1998 Mar;159(3):800-3
references.pmid: 9474152
references.citation: Obstet Gynecol. 1993 Mar;81(3):430-3
references.pmid: 8437800
references.citation: Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001 Jan;184(2):20-7
references.pmid: 11174474
references.citation: Rev Urol. 2004;6 Suppl 3:S3-9
references.pmid: 16985863