Korean J Urol.  2007 Mar;48(3):291-296. 10.4111/kju.2007.48.3.291.

The Difference in Mode of Administration of International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) in Patients with Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms

• Cha KB
• Oh CY
• Choi KH
• Yu HS
• Mah SY

• KMID: 1997127
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4111/kju.2007.48.3.291

Abstract

PURPOSE
The International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) is generally self- administrated; however, it is doubtful that the self-administrated IPSS score correctly reflects patients' symptoms; therefore, the difference in the IPSS self-administrated score and physician-interviewed patients was studied.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A total of 202 patients completed two IPSS questionnaires during the same office visit, one by self-administration and the other by physician-interview, at two medical centers, one located in an urban area and the other in a rural area. The mean total symptom score and the score for each question, and the quality of life score were compared between the two modes of administration. A multi-logistical regression analysis was performed to identify differences due to the effects of age, the order of administration, location and educational level.
RESULTS
The mean total symptom score and quality of life score were higher in the self-administrated than physician-interviewed group (14.16 vs. 13.07, p=0.001, 3.27 vs. 3.2, p=0.090). The residual sense (2.03 vs. 1.97, p=0.20), frequency (2.07 vs. 1.97, p=0.026), interruption (1.83 vs. 1.61, p=0.002), urgency (1.89 vs. 1.55, p=0.001), weak stream (2.74 vs. 2.60, p=0.042), hesitancy (1.77 vs. 1.59, p=0.005) and nocturia (1.82 vs. 1.77, p=0.12) were also higher in the self-administrated group. The multi- logistical regression analysis revealed statistically significant differences in relation to age and location.
CONCLUSIONS
The self-administrated IPSS score was higher than the physician-interview score, especially in relation to an older age and an urban location. Therefore, active intervention should be considered during the administration of the IPSS, especially for old aged patients living in urban areas.

Keyword

Urinary tract; Symptoms; Prostate; Administration

MeSH Terms

Humans
Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms*
Nocturia
Office Visits
Prostate*
Quality of Life
Questionnaires
Rivers
Urinary Tract

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 Mean scores for the self-administrated and physician-interview questionnaires.

Reference

1. Ezz el Din K, Kiemeney LA, de Wildlt MJ, Debruyne FM, de la Rosette JJ. Correlation between uroflowmetry, prostate volume, postvoid residue and urinary tract symptoms as measured by the international prostate symptom score. Urology. 1996. 48:393–397.

2. Madsen PO, Iversen P. Hinman F, editor. A point system for selecting operative candidate. Benign prostatic hypertrophy. 1983. New York: Springer-Verlag;763–765.

3. Boyarsky S, Jones G, Paulson DF, Prout GR Jr. A new look at bladder neck obstruction by the Food and Drug Administration regulators: guide lines for investigation of benign prostatic hypertrophy. Trans Am Assoc Genitourin Surg. 1976. 68:29–32.

4. Barry MJ, Fowler FJ, O'Leary MP, Brukskewitz RC, Holtgrewe HL, Mebust WK, et al. The American Urological Association Symptom Index for benign prostate hyperplasia: The measurement Committee of the American Urologic Association. J Urol. 1992. 148:1549–1557.

5. Cockett AT, Khoury S, Aso Y, Chatelein C, Denis L, Griffith K, et al. The 2nd international consultation on benign prostatic hyperplasia. 1994. Chanel Island: Scientific Communication International, Ltd;624–631.

6. Sagnier PP, Macfarlane G, Richard F, Botto H, Teillac P, Boyle P. Results of an epidemiological survey using a modified American Urological Association symptom index for benign prostatic hyperplasia in France. J Urol. 1994. 151:1266–1270.

7. Tsukamoto T, Kumamoto Y, Masumori N, Miyake H, Rhodes T, Girman CJ, et al. Prevalence of prostatism in Japanese men in a community based study with comparison to a similar American study. J Urol. 1995. 154:391–395.

8. Choi HR, Chung WS, Shim BS, Kwon SW, Honh SJ, Chung BH, et al. Translation validity and reliability of I-PSS Korean version. Korean J Urol. 1996. 37:659–665.

9. Flower FJ Jr, Wennberg JE, Timothy RP, Barry MJ, Mulley AG Jr, Hanley D. Symptom status and quality of life following prostatectomy. JAMA. 1988. 259:3018–3022.

10. MacDiamid SA, Goodson TC, Holmes TM, Martin PR, Doyle RB. An assessment of the comprehension of the American Urological Association Symptom Index. J Urol. 1998. 159:873–874.

11. Russo F, Di Pasquale B, Romano G, Vicentini C, Manieri C, Tubaro A, et al. International prostate symptom score: comparison of doctor and patients. Arch Ital Urol Androl. 1998. 70(3):Suppl. 15–24.

12. Cam K, Senel F, Akman Y, Erol A. The efficacy of an abbreviated model of the International Prostate Symptom Score in evaluating benign prostatic hyperplasia. BJU Int. 2003. 91:186–189.

13. Rodriguez Netto N Jr, de Lima ML, de Andrade EF, Apuzzo F, da Silva MB, Davidzon IM, et al. Latin american study on patient acceptance of the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) in the evaluation of symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia. Urology. 1997. 49:46–49.

14. Kim JS, Choi JK, Rim JS. A study to know the difference between IPSS based on memory and IPSS based on voiding diary. Korean J Urol. 2000. 41:1097–1102.