An integrative review of standardized clinical evaluation tool utilization in anticholinergic drug trials for neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction.

STUDY DESIGN: To review prospective and randomized trials studying anticholinergic therapy for neurogenic bladder in SCI to identify whether trials included standardized clinical evaluation tools and reporting measures now recognized to enhance clinical trial data. METHODS: A systematic search via EMBASE, MEDLINE, CENTRAL, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), HTA (Health Technology Assessment), CMR (Comprehensive Microbial Resource), HAPI (Health and Psychosocial Instruments) and PsycINFO using the key term spinal cord injury crossed with oxybutynin, tolterodine, darifenacin, solifenacin, fesoterodine, trospium chloride, propiverine, propantheline and anticholinergic(s) for 1946-2015 inclusive. We then collated whether standardized clinical tools, measures and descriptors were used within each study identified: American Spine Injury Association (ASIA) impairment scale; symptom scores validated in SCI; technical methodology for urodynamics/video urodynamics; urinary diaries; and standardized urologic terminology. RESULTS: A total of 1225 entries with 610 unique articles were identified, 14 randomized and 16 prospective studies. In 6/30 the population comprised SCI patients with neurogenic bladder alone; the remainder included mixed neurogenic etiologies. Classification using the ASIA impairment scale was used in <10% of studies; none used symptom scores validated in SCI; <50% reported urodynamic test methodology fully, incorporated urinary diaries or used International Continence Society Standardization Subcommittee urinary tract terminology. CONCLUSION: Integrative review of trials from 1946 to 2015 identified infrequent use of standardized clinical evaluation tools and reporting measures. Data from future trials evaluating therapies for neurogenic bladder would likely be more applicable to specific SCI patients if current standardized classification and descriptors now available were used consistently: for example, the ASIA scale, symptom scores validated in SCI, standardized urodynamic methodology, urinary diaries and urinary tract terminology. Studies recruiting SCI patients exclusively would also provide additional benefit.

A systematic review and comparison of questionnaires in the management of spinal cord injury, multiple sclerosis and the neurogenic bladder.

AIMS: Validated questionnaires are increasingly the preferred method used to obtain historical information. Specialized questionnaires exist validated for patients with neurogenic disease including neurogenic bladder. Those currently available are systematically reviewed and their potential for clinical and research use are described. METHODS: A systematic search via Medline and PubMed using the key terms questionnaire(s) crossed with Multiple Sclerosis (MS) and Spinal Cord Injury (SCI) for the years 1946 to January 22, 2014 inclusive. Additional articles were selected from review of references in the publications identified. Only peer reviewed articles published in English were included. RESULTS: 18 questionnaires exist validated for patients with neurogenic bladder; 14 related to MS, 3 for SCI, and 1 for neurogenic bladder in general; with 4 cross-validated in both MS and SCI. All 18 are validated for both male and female patients; 59% are available only in English. The domains of psychological impact and physical function are represented in 71% and 76% of questionnaires, respectively. None for the female population included elements to measure symptoms of prolapse. CONCLUSION: The last decade has seen an expansion of validated questionnaires to document bladder symptoms in neurogenic disease. Disease specific instruments are available for incorporation into the clinical setting for MS and SCI patients with neurogenic bladder. The availability of caregiver and interview options enhances suitability in clinical practice as they can be adapted to various extents of disability. Future developments should include expanded language validation to the top 10 global languages reported by the World Health Organization.