Table 1.
PROM | Publication | Specific condition | Pros | Cons |
---|---|---|---|---|
AUA-SS | Barry et al. 1992 [20] | Benign prostatic hypertrophy | • Significant correlation with postoperative uroflow | • Not specific for urethral stricture |
• Floor effect in 21% of patients | ||||
• Adequate reliability, internal consistency | • Lack of content validity | |||
CLSS | Homma et al. 2008 [21] | Mix of conditions affecting urinary tract | • Addressing multiple urinary complains | • Not specific for urethral stricture |
• Quality of life component | ||||
ISI | Wei et al. 2003 [22] | Urinary incontinence | • Addressing bother related to incontinence | • Utilized in few studies |
• Not specific for urethral stricture | ||||
Expert created | Kessler et al. 2002 [7] | Urethral stricture | • Assessing urinary and sexual impact | • Not validated |
• Quality of life component | ||||
USS PROM | Jackson et al. 2011 [17••] | Urethral stricture | • Excellent psychometric parameters | • Not addressing sexual function/oral mucosa complains |
• Disease specific | ||||
• Questions are not constructed according to patients’ complaints | ||||
USSIM | Breyer et al., 2017 [19••] | Urethral stricture | • Most comprehensive PROM | • In the process of validation |
• Urethral stricture specific | ||||
• Significant patient input and quality of life component |
AUA-SS American Urological Association Symptom Score, CLSS Core Lower Urinary Tract Symptom Score, ISI Incontinence Symptom Index, USS PROM Urethra Stricture Surgery PROM, USSIM Urethral Stricture Symptoms and Impact Measure