ABSTRACT
Objectives To evaluated the accuracy of a single question on nocturia to identify men with moderate and severe LUTS.
Methods We evaluated men aged ≥40 years who presented for medical evaluation at two different urological clinics. They completed the IPSS and the Nocturia Single Question Scale (NSQS). NSQS consists of a single question assessing nocturia frequency ranging from 0 to 4. The severity of LUTS using NSQS (index test) versus IPSS (reference standard) was assessed according to the recommendations of the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Initiative.
Results The accuracy of the NSQS to discriminate patients with severe LUTS based on the ROC curve was 75% (CI 95% 73 – 82%; p<0.001).
Conclusion Patients without nocturia or a single void/night (NSQS <2) have low probability, while NSQS ≥ 3 has a high probability of having moderate or severe LUTS. NSQS is an acceptable alternative to the IPSS, being a fast and simple tool to identify men according to LUTS’s severity.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
No external funding.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the State University of Feira de Santana under protocol no. 64704017.7.0000.0053, position statement 2.052.761, and all participants provided written informed consent.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
The data are in the custody of the senior researcher. They will be available upon request
