The International Prostate Symptom Score: Discrepancies between Self-administration and Physician-administration

Hee Joo Cho; Jeong Yoon Kang; Tag Keun Yoo

doi:10.4111/kju.2007.48.5.500

Journal List > Korean J Urol > v.48(5) > 1004917

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Cho, Kang, and Yoo: The International Prostate Symptom Score: Discrepancies between Self-administration and Physician-administration

Original Article

Korean Journal of Urology

Korean Journal of Urology 2007; 48(5): 500-504.

Published online: 31 May 2007

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4111/kju.2007.48.5.500

The International Prostate Symptom Score: Discrepancies between Self-administration and Physician-administration

Hee Joo Cho, Jeong Yoon Kang, Tag Keun Yoo

Department of Urology, Eulji University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.

Corresponding author (ytk5202@eulji.or.kr)

Received 10 November 2006 Accepted 3 April 2007

Abstract

Purpose

The International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) is the most commonly used scoring system to quantify the lower urinary tract symptoms of benign prostate hyperplasia. The objective of this study was to measure any discrepancies in the Korean version of the IPSS when it is administered by the patients themselves as opposed to when it was administered by the physician.

Materials and Methods

Seventy two patients were asked to fill out two IPSS questionnaires during their first visit; one was self-administered and the other was administered by a physician in an interview. The total IPSS, quality of life and the individual questions were compared between the two modes of administration.

Results

Statistically significant differences were found in the mean total IPSS (16.9±8.44 versus 15.0±7.53, respectively) and the scores on questions 3 (intermittency) and 4 (urgency) between the self and physician administered IPSS (2.40±2.03 versus 1.47±1.88 and 1.86±1.87 versus 1.26±1.58, respectively). Thirty one patients (44.3%) demonstrated a difference of more than 3 points on the total IPSS score.

Conclusions

This study suggests that there may be discrepancies between the self and physician administered IPSS scores. Therefore, physicians should review the score of each question, and especially those on intermittency and urgency.

Keywords: International Prostate Symptom Score, Urinary tract, Symptoms

Figures and Tables

Fig. 1

Number of persons who had different scores of the total IPSS score between the two administration modes. IPSS: International Prostate Symptom Score.

Table 1

Characteristics of the patients

BPH: benign prostatic hyperplasia, PSA: prostate-specific antigen

Table 2

Mean scores for self-administration versus physician administration

Value represents mean±standard deviation. IPSS: International Prostate Symptom Score

Table 3

Mean scores for self-administration versus physician administration according to the symptom severity

Value represents mean±standard deviation. IPSS: International Prostate Symptom Score, SA: self-administration, PA: physician administration, RU: residual urine. ^*: p<0.001, ^†: p<0.05 compared with self administration and physician administration.

Table 4

Number of persons who had different scores for each question between the two administration modes

RU: residual urine

References

1. Guess HA, Arrighi HM, Metter EJ, Fozard JL. Cumulative prevalence of prostatism matches the autopsy prevalence of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Prostate. 1990. 17:241–246.

2. Mebust WK, Holtgrewe HL, Cockett AT, Peters PC. Transurethral prostatectomy: immediate and postoperative complication. A cooperative study of 13 participating institutions evaluating 3,885 patients. J Urol. 1989. 141:243–247.

3. Gee WF, Holtgrewe HL, Albertsen PC, Litwin MS, Manyak MJ, O'Leary MP, et al. Practice trends in the diagnosis and management of benign prostatic hyperplasia in the United States. J Urol. 1995. 154:205–206.

4. Barry MJ, Flower FJ Jr, O'Leary MP, Bruskewitz RC, Holtgrewe HL, Mebust WK, et al. The American Urological Association symptom index for benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Urol. 1992. 148:1549–1557.

5. Barry MJ, Cockett AT, Holtgrewe HL, McConnell JD, Sihelnik SA, Winfield HN. Relationship of symptoms of prostatism to commonly used physiological and anatomical measures of the severity of benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Urol. 1993. 150:351–358.

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

7. Boyarsky S, Jones G, Paulson DF, Prout GR Jr. A new look at bladder neck obstruction by the food and drug administration regulators: guidelines for investigation of benign prostatic hypertrophy. Trans Am Assoc Genitourin Surg. 1976. 68:29–32.

8. Madsen PO, Iversen P. Hinman F, editor. A point system for selecting operative candidates. Benign prostatic hypertrophy. 1993. New York: Springer-Verlag;763–765.

9. 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.

10. Yu HJ, Chiang CJ, Chie WC, Chiu TY, Lai MK. Prevalence of urinary symptoms in men aged 40 to 79 years: A community-based study. J Urol ROC. 1995. 6:7–11.

11. 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.

12. Kim JS, Choi CK, 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.

13. Plante M, Corcos J, Gregoire I, Belanger MF, Brock G, Rossingol M. The international prostate symptom score: physician versus self-administration in the quantification of symptomatology. Urology. 1996. 47:326–328.

TOOLS

Similar articles