Urinary diaries: Evidence for the development and validation of diary content, format, and duration

Authors


  • Conflicts of interest: Elizabeth Bright: Research Grant: Verathon Marcus Drake: Speaker Honorarium: Ferring/Pfizer/AstellasTrial participation: Astellas/AllerganResearch Grant: Astellas/Pfizer Paul Abrams:Consultant: Astellas/Pfizer/Ono/NovartisSpeaker Honorarium: AstellasTrial participation: Verathon.

  • Roger Dmochowski led the review process.

Abstract

Aims

To review the published literature for evidence of urinary diary development and validation, in terms of diary format, content, and duration. To identify a fully validated urinary diary.

Methods

MEDLINE search to identify all published English literature to date regarding urinary diaries. The search terms used were: micturition chart, micturition diary, frequency volume chart, bladder chart, bladder diary, urinary chart, urinary diary, voiding chart, and voiding diary. Studies were reviewed to identify any descriptions of diary development and whether diary format, duration, or content had been subject to validity testing.

Results

One thousand four hundred sixty-three studies were identified using the described search terms. Of these 81 were deemed potentially relevant to the investigation and reviewed. Fourteen studies investigated optimum diary duration but only four described the development of a new diary tool. There is limited evidence regarding the validation of dairy content and format. No study describes the use of content, construct, or criterion validity as well as tests of reliability and responsiveness for diary development and validation.

Conclusions

A validated urinary diary does not currently exist. A validated diary would provide an enhanced clinical tool, and, as with validated symptom questionnaires, would allow comparison between different research studies. Neurourol. Urodynam. 30:348–352, 2011. © 2011 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Ancillary