Assessment Tools & Questionnaires
Validated patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), severity grading scales, and objective assessment tools are the foundation of reconstructive-urology and urogynecology workup. They anchor the clinical conversation, document baseline severity, guide surgical decision-making, and provide reproducible patient-reported or measured endpoints for follow-up and research. PROMs measure the patient’s experience; they are not objective anatomical tests.
This page catalogs the major validated instruments used in GU reconstructive practice, organized by clinical domain. For each tool, the entries cover purpose, scoring, validation, and clinical role — not the psychometric minutiae available in the primary literature.
Erectile and Sexual Function
SHIM / IIEF-5 (Sexual Health Inventory for Men)
The short-form 5-item version of the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF), focused on erectile function over the past 6 months.[1][2]
| Parameter | Detail |
|---|---|
| Questions | 5 — confidence, firmness for penetration, maintenance during intercourse, difficulty maintaining to completion, satisfaction |
| Scoring range | 1–25 |
| ED severity | Severe 1–7, Moderate 8–11, Mild-moderate 12–16, Mild 17–21, No ED 22–25 |
| Time horizon | Past 6 months |
| Use the validated version | Preserve wording, recall period, response options and scoring; use an appropriately validated translation.[1] |
| Clinical role | Baseline ED assessment; response to PDE5i / VED / ICI; pre- and post-implant comparison |
Limitation: SHIM captures ED severity specifically, not broader sexual function. For the latter, use the sexual-function domain of EPIC (Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite) or the UCLA Prostate Cancer Index in prostate-cancer populations.[3]
Full IIEF (IIEF-15)
Comprehensive 15-item instrument covering 5 domains: erectile function, orgasmic/ejaculatory function, sexual desire, intercourse satisfaction, and overall satisfaction.[2]
Used in:
- Clinical trials requiring multi-domain outcome capture
- Research studies where SHIM alone is insufficient
- Peyronie's disease work-up in combination with the PDQ (Peyronie's Disease Questionnaire) for psychosocial and sexual-function tracking
Female Sexual Function
For the clinical framework see Female Sexual Dysfunction. Use questionnaires to describe function, bother and change over time alongside the clinical interview. A low function score alone does not establish a disorder: assess distress, the patient's goals, sexual activity and its context, medications, pain and other contributing conditions.[23][24]
FSFI-19 (Female Sexual Function Index)
A widely used multidomain sexual-function instrument.[24]
| Parameter | Detail |
|---|---|
| Items | 19 (self-report) |
| Domains | Desire, arousal, lubrication, orgasm, satisfaction, pain (6 domains) |
| Recall | 4 weeks |
| Scoring | Domain scores weighted and summed; total range 2–36; 26.55 is a commonly used research screening threshold, not a universal diagnostic boundary; interpretation depends on the validation population and clinical context |
| Psychometrics (COSMIN SR, 83 studies) | Sufficient internal consistency, sufficient reliability, sufficient criterion validity. Structural-validity evidence inconsistent; data on measurement error, responsiveness, cross-cultural validity were lacking.[24] |
| Languages | Validated in English, Spanish, Arabic, Chinese, and at least 5 others |
| Limitations | Does not measure sexual distress. Some items assign zero for no activity; low scores may reflect inactivity or lack of a partner rather than dysfunction. It has a pain domain but no separate labial/clitoral discomfort scales.[30] |
FSFI-6 and FSFI-9 (short forms)
- FSFI-6 samples all six domains, including pain. Its scores and validation cannot be substituted for those of the 19-item instrument. The COSMIN review found limitations in several measurement properties; choose the version and language validated for the intended use.[24][30]
- FSFI-9 was developed from 898 peri- and postmenopausal women with hot flashes. It was intended as a shorter continuous outcome measure, particularly for secondary outcomes; that study did not establish a diagnostic cutoff against an expert clinical interview. Do not generalize its performance to all populations.[30]
FSDS / FSDS-R / FSDS-DAO (Female Sexual Distress Scale)
- FSDS is the original 12-item distress instrument; FSDS-R has 13 items, adding a low-desire distress question. Do not apply the revised instrument's scoring rules or threshold to the original form.[26][31]
- FSDS-R measures distress separately from function. Its original validation involved 296 premenopausal women aged 18–50 with HSDD, another sexual dysfunction, or no dysfunction. Seven- and 30-day recall periods were studied; correlation between them does not make the versions interchangeable for longitudinal follow-up.[26]
- FSDS-DAO extends distress assessment to desire, arousal and orgasm. Specify the exact version and whether the total score or a single item is used. A trial endpoint is not automatically a clinical diagnostic criterion.[25]
DSDS (Decreased Sexual Desire Screener)
A brief, 5-item diagnostic instrument specifically designed for non-specialist clinicians to diagnose generalized acquired HSDD.[27]
| Parameter | Detail |
|---|---|
| Items | 4 patient yes/no items + 1 collaborative clinician item to rule out other causes |
| Time | Brief patient-and-clinician assessment; investigate competing explanations rather than treating the score as a stand-alone diagnosis |
| Sensitivity / specificity | 83.6% / 87.8% in the original 263-woman validation study |
| Diagnostic agreement with expert clinician interview | 85.2%; non-expert clinicians considered the DSDS adequate to diagnose HSDD in 92.9% of cases |
| Scope | Generalized acquired HSDD; does not diagnose every cause of low desire or sexual pain |
SIDI-F (Sexual Interest and Desire Inventory–Female)
A 13-item clinician-administered scale specifically designed to measure HSDD severity (not general FSD).[28]
- The original study reported internal consistency of α 0.90, convergence with other sexual-function measures, and differences between HSDD, female orgasmic disorder and no-dysfunction groups. This is validation of the studied construct and population, not a universal diagnostic score.
- Particularly useful for quantifying HSDD severity and monitoring treatment response.
PROMIS Sexual Function and Satisfaction (SexFS) v2.0
PROMIS customizable, modular instrument with 11 scored scales — interest in sexual activity, lubrication, vaginal discomfort, clitoral discomfort, labial discomfort, erectile function, orgasm ability, orgasm pleasure, oral dryness, oral discomfort, satisfaction.[29]
- Scores centered on norms for sexually active US adults; applicable to both men and women, with or without a partner.
- Select only the domains relevant to the patient's concerns and use the official version-specific scoring. Dedicated labial/clitoral discomfort domains can help describe symptoms that a global score misses; this does not mean that every scale is validated for every clinical population.[29]
PISQ-IR (Pelvic Organ Prolapse / Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire — IUGA Revised)
A condition-specific validated questionnaire for women with pelvic-floor disorders — sexually active women answer 21 questions in 6 domains; sexually inactive women answer 12 questions in 4 domains. Includes separate sexually active and inactive pathways, including reasons for inactivity. Use the appropriate pathway and official scoring; do not combine the two into an invented common score.[32]
Comparison Table
| Instrument | Items | Administration | Primary use | Key domains |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FSFI-19 | 19 | Self-report | Comprehensive FSD assessment | Desire, arousal, lubrication, orgasm, satisfaction, pain |
| FSFI-6 | 6 | Self-report | Brief FSD screening | One item from each of six domains, including pain |
| FSFI-9 | 9 | Self-report | Brief FSD assessment (peri / postmenopausal) | Abbreviated domains |
| FSDS | 12 | Self-report | Sexual-distress measurement | Global sexually-related distress |
| FSDS-R | 13 | Self-report | Distress (HSDD-sensitive) | Global distress + low-desire distress (Item 13) |
| FSDS-DAO | 15 | Self-report | Distress (desire / arousal / orgasm) | Distress specific to desire, arousal, orgasm |
| DSDS | 5 | Patient + clinician | HSDD diagnosis by non-specialists | Generalized acquired HSDD screening / diagnosis |
| SIDI-F | 13 | Clinician | HSDD severity measurement | Desire symptoms, comorbid factors |
| PROMIS SexFS v2.0 | Modular (11 scales) | Self-report | Customizable function assessment | Interest, lubrication, vulvar discomfort, orgasm, satisfaction |
| PISQ-IR | 21 active / 12 inactive | Self-report | Sexual function in pelvic-floor disorders | Condition-specific; captures sexual inactivity |
Choosing an instrument
Start with the patient's concern, then choose a function, distress or condition-specific measure that will inform care. FSFI and FSDS-R answer different questions and may be paired when both are relevant. PISQ-IR is useful for pelvic-floor cohorts including sexually inactive women. DSDS supports the assessment of generalized acquired low desire; it is not a substitute for evaluating pain, medication effects or relationship context. Avoid administering every questionnaire at each visit.[23][24][26][27][32]
Pelvic Organ Prolapse
POP-Q (Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification)
POP-Q standardizes vaginal support measurements relative to the hymen. Record the actual compartment measurements and examination conditions; symptoms and treatment goals matter alongside anatomical stage. The simplified POP-Q also has supporting reproducibility evidence. For landmark definitions, staging boundaries and a worked example, use the female pelvic examination page.[4][5]
PFDI-20 and PFIQ-7 (Pelvic Floor Distress / Impact)
- PFDI-20 (Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-20): 20 items, range 0–300, distress from pelvic floor symptoms across three subscales (UDI-6 urinary, POPDI-6 prolapse, CRADI-8 colorectal-anal)[6]
- PFIQ-7 (Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire-7): 21 items total (7 per subscale), range 0–300, quality of life impact across urinary, prolapse and colorectal-anal domains (UIQ-7, POPIQ-7 and CRAIQ-7)[6]
Paired use captures both symptom distress and functional impact.
The PISQ-IR adds a sexual-function assessment when relevant; PFDI-20 and PFIQ-7 do not cover that domain.
Urinary Incontinence — Objective Severity
Pad Weight Tests
Pad weighing quantifies leakage during a specified test period. Record duration, bladder preparation, activities, collection completeness and pad handling. A one-hour test with standardized activities and a 24-hour test during usual activity answer somewhat different questions; neither is a universal gold standard for all incontinence outcomes.[7][8]
| Test | Useful role | Important limitation |
|---|---|---|
| One-hour ICS protocol | Reproducible instructions for a short provocation assessment | Leakage depends on bladder volume and activity; a negative result does not exclude the patient's usual leakage. |
| 24-hour test | Quantifies urine loss during everyday activity; may help with treatment selection and follow-up | Depends on collection completeness, fluid intake, activity and storage to limit evaporation; repeat under comparable conditions. |
| Longer tests | Selected research or assessment of day-to-day variation | More burdensome; a small seven-day study does not establish a preferred routine protocol. |
There is no universal abnormal threshold of 15 g. Interpret results using the specific protocol and population. Female-derived cutoffs should not be transferred automatically to men after prostatectomy. Pad weights do not reliably distinguish stress from urgency incontinence and must be considered alongside symptoms and examination.[7][8]
NICE advises against routine pad tests in the initial assessment of women with urinary incontinence. Selective use for a defined clinical question or research outcome is different from requiring one for every patient.[33]
MSIGS (Male Stress Incontinence Grading Scale)
An observed leakage scale developed for men with post-prostatectomy stress incontinence. In the original protocol, the patient had not voided for at least an hour and performed four forceful coughs while standing. Document test conditions; the pilot did not standardize bladder volume.[34]
| Grade | Observed leakage |
|---|---|
| 0 | Reports leakage but none demonstrated during the test |
| 1 | Delayed drops only |
| 2 | Early drops, no stream |
| 3 | Early drops, delayed stream |
| 4 | Early and persistent stream |
Clinical utility: Adds prognostic value to pads-per-day in predicting transobturator sling success; incorporated into the Shakir refined nomogram for sling candidate selection. Higher grades were associated with lower sling success in observational cohorts. It is one part of counseling, not an automatic sling-versus-AUS rule; consider radiation, prior procedures, bladder function, patient preferences and ability to operate an AUS.[9]
Voiding / Bladder Diaries
A diary, commonly collected over 3 days, records fluid intake, voiding events and incontinence episodes. It captures storage LUTS, identifies modifiable factors (fluid volume, caffeine, diuretic timing), and monitors response to treatment.[10][11]
ICIQ Bladder Diary (validated)
The 3-day ICIQ bladder diary is a validated option.[12] Records:
- Time and volume of each void
- Fluid intake (type and volume)
- Incontinence episodes with circumstances (urge, stress, leakage with activity)
- Pad use
AUA/SUFU OAB guidance: clinicians may obtain a questionnaire and/or voiding diary to support diagnosis, exclude other disorders, assess bother and evaluate response; this is optional rather than a mandatory test for every patient.[11]
Role alongside urodynamics: complementary — more accessible, affordable, and can be completed at home. A diary does not measure detrusor pressure or replace urodynamics when pressure-based information is needed.[10]
Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms
| Instrument | Population | Key features |
|---|---|---|
| IPSS (International Prostate Symptom Score) | Primarily men with LUTS | 7 symptom items (0–35) plus a separate QoL item (0–6); a symptom score does not diagnose obstruction[36] |
| ICIQ-UI SF | Men and women | Four items: three scored frequency/amount/impact items produce 0–21; the leakage-circumstances item is unscored.[35] |
| ICIQ-LUTSqol | People with urinary incontinence | Quality-of-life impact of leakage, adapted from the King’s Health Questionnaire; select a validated language/version.[37] |
| ICIQ-MLUTS / ICSmaleSF | Men | ICIQ-MLUTS developed from the ICS male questionnaire; captures individual urinary symptoms and bother, including incontinence.[36] |
| LURN-SI-29 / LURN-SI-10 | All genders | Voiding, storage, and incontinence symptoms; validated across genders[11] |
| Bristol Female LUTS | Women | Comprehensive female-specific LUTS[11] |
Incontinence-Specific
| Instrument | Purpose |
|---|---|
| ISI (Incontinence Symptom Index) | Severity and bother measure used in the cited male AUS cohort. Specify the actual instrument/version; do not confuse it with the similarly abbreviated Incontinence Severity Index.[15] |
| IIQ-7 (Incontinence Impact Questionnaire-7) | Life impact of urinary incontinence; a separate instrument from the UIQ-7 within PFIQ-7.[38] |
| UDI-6 (Urogenital Distress Inventory-6) | Six urinary symptom-distress items, also used within PFDI-20; preserve the exact instrument’s response options and scoring.[6][38] |
Urethral Stricture Disease
USS-PROM (Urethral Stricture Surgery PROM)
A disease-specific PROM developed for men undergoing anterior urethral reconstruction; combines LUTS, health-status (EQ-5D), and treatment satisfaction items.[16][17]
Clinical role: baseline documentation and longitudinal tracking before and after urethroplasty. Use the validated language/version. Do not assume the cited male validation establishes validity in women or other reconstructive populations.
Urethral Stricture Score
Keep anatomical classification separate from the patient-reported USS-PROM. LSE describes length, segment and etiology; the Urethral Stricture Score (USS) is a different system incorporating additional stricture characteristics. Neither is a guaranteed individual outcome predictor.[18][19]
In the cited 2022 retrospective comparison of 187 men, LSE was associated with recurrence whereas USS was not. Associations with operative complexity or recurrence depend on the studied system and cohort; do not describe every score as validated for every outcome or as dictating the operation.[18]
Other Validated Tools
| Instrument | Domain |
|---|---|
| EPIC (Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite) | Prostate-cancer treatment outcomes: urinary incontinence, urinary irritation/obstruction, bowel, sexual and hormonal domains — widely used in prostate-cancer reconstruction research[14] |
| NIH-CPSI (NIH Chronic Prostatitis Symptom Index) | Pain, urination, and overall impact in chronic prostatitis / CPPS[20] |
| ICIQ-S (ICIQ-Satisfaction) | Satisfaction instrument initially validated in 410 men undergoing surgery for benign prostatic obstruction; broader reconstructive use needs appropriate validation[21] |
| EQ-5D | Generic health-related quality of life; component of USS-PROM and many other disease-specific bundles[16][17][22] |
| PDQ (Peyronie's Disease Questionnaire) | Peyronie's-specific psychosocial, sexual function, and pain domains |
How to Use These in Practice
Choose a small set that answers the patient's clinical question, using the same version and recall period at follow-up:
| Clinical concern | Reasonable starting assessment |
|---|---|
| Erectile dysfunction | SHIM or full IIEF according to the information needed; add a Peyronie's-specific measure when relevant. |
| Male LUTS | IPSS with its separate QoL item; add a diary or incontinence measure for the relevant symptoms. |
| Male stress incontinence | Patient-reported severity/bother, pad use and observed cough leakage; consider a pad-weight test when it will inform care. |
| Prolapse | POP-Q plus a symptom/bother measure; add life-impact or sexual-function assessment according to concerns, including inactivity when relevant. |
| Female incontinence | A brief validated symptom/impact measure and a bladder diary; NICE recommends at least three representative days. Additional questionnaires and pad tests are selective.[33] |
| Male anterior urethral stricture | USS-PROM with anatomical evaluation and follow-up; symptom improvement and urethral patency are distinct outcomes.[13] |
Avoid duplicate items, such as administering UDI-6 separately when it is already contained in PFDI-20. Keep the original scoring, missing-item rules and validated translations when using an instrument. A new population, altered wording or a different recall period may require validation.
When symptoms and a measured result differ, investigate test conditions and what each instrument measures. A negative pad test or a favorable anatomical result does not invalidate the patient's symptoms or distress. Record both and use them to guide the next assessment.
See Also
- Female Pelvic Examination & POP-Q — including POP-Q technique
- Male Urogenital Exam
- Urodynamics
- Erectile Dysfunction — clinical use of SHIM / IIEF
- Peyronie's Disease — PDQ + IIEF in workup
References
1. Cappelleri JC, Rosen RC. The Sexual Health Inventory for Men (SHIM): a 5-year review of research and clinical experience. Int J Impot Res. 2005;17(4):307–19. doi:10.1038/sj.ijir.3901327
2. Bordeianou LG, Anger JT, Boutros M, et al. Measuring pelvic floor disorder symptoms using patient-reported instruments: proceedings of the consensus meeting of the Pelvic Floor Consortium of ASCRS, ICS, AUGS, and SUFU. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2020;26(1):1–15. doi:10.1097/SPV.0000000000000817
3. Levinson AW, Ward NT, Sanda MG, et al. Comparison of validated instruments measuring sexual function in men. Urology. 2010;76(2):380–386. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2010.04.033
4. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Pelvic organ prolapse: ACOG practice bulletin, number 214. Obstet Gynecol. 2019;134(5):e126–e142. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000003519
5. Madhu C, Swift S, Moloney-Geany S, Drake MJ. How to use the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) system? Neurourol Urodyn. 2018;37(S6):S39–S43. doi:10.1002/nau.23740
6. Barber MD, Walters MD, Bump RC. Short forms of two condition-specific quality-of-life questionnaires for women with pelvic floor disorders (PFDI-20 and PFIQ-7). Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;193:103–113. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2004.12.025
7. Medeiros Araujo C, de Morais NR, Sacomori C, de Sousa Dantas D. Pad test for urinary incontinence diagnosis in adults: systematic review of diagnostic test accuracy. Neurourol Urodyn. 2022;41(3):696–709. doi:10.1002/nau.24878
8. Krhut J, Zachoval R, Smith PP, et al. Pad weight testing in the evaluation of urinary incontinence. Neurourol Urodyn. 2014;33(5):507–10. doi:10.1002/nau.22436
9. Shakir NA, Fuchs JS, McKibben MJ, et al. Refined nomogram incorporating standing cough test improves prediction of male transobturator sling success. Neurourol Urodyn. 2018;37(8):2632–2637. doi:10.1002/nau.23703
10. Liapis I, Gammie A, Mohamed-Ahmed R, et al. Can we increase the value of data from bladder diaries? International Consultation on Incontinence-Research Society 2023. Neurourol Urodyn. 2024;43(6):1311–1320. doi:10.1002/nau.25374
11. Cameron AP, Chung DE, Dielubanza EJ, et al. The AUA/SUFU guideline on the diagnosis and treatment of idiopathic overactive bladder. J Urol. 2024;212(1):11–20. doi:10.1097/JU.0000000000003985
12. Bright E, Cotterill N, Drake M, Abrams P. Developing and validating the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire Bladder Diary. Eur Urol. 2014;66(2):294–300. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2014.02.057
13. D'hulst P, Muilwijk T, Vander Eeckt K, Van der Aa F, Joniau S. Patient-reported outcomes after buccal mucosal graft urethroplasty for bulbar urethral strictures. BJU Int. 2020;126(6):684–693. doi:10.1111/bju.15131
14. Donovan JL, Hamdy FC, Lane JA, et al. Patient-reported outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(15):1425–1437. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1606221
15. Wingate JT, Erickson BA, Murphy G, et al. Multicenter analysis of patient reported outcomes following artificial urinary sphincter placement for male stress urinary incontinence. J Urol. 2018;199(3):785–790. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2017.09.089
16. Jackson MJ, Chaudhury I, Mangera A, et al. A prospective patient-centred evaluation of urethroplasty for anterior urethral stricture using a validated patient-reported outcome measure. Eur Urol. 2013;64(5):777–82. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2013.04.037
17. Horiguchi A, Shinchi M, Ojima K, et al. Evaluation of the effect of urethroplasty for anterior urethral strictures by a validated disease-specific patient-reported outcome measure. World J Urol. 2019;37(4):601–606. doi:10.1007/s00345-018-2540-z
18. Kurtzman JT, Kosber R, Kerr P, Brandes SB. Evaluating tools for characterizing anterior urethral stricture disease: a comparison of the LSE system and the Urethral Stricture Score. J Urol. 2022;208(5):1083–1089. doi:10.1097/JU.0000000000002880
19. John A, Kahokehr AA. Classification systems for anterior urethral stricture disease in men: a systematic review. World J Urol. 2021;39(3):761–769. doi:10.1007/s00345-020-03250-8
20. Schaeffer AJ. Chronic prostatitis and the chronic pelvic pain syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2006;355(16):1690–8. doi:10.1056/NEJMcp060423
21. Uren AD, Cotterill N, Hashim H, et al. International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Satisfaction: psychometric testing of a new patient-reported outcome measure for the evaluation of satisfaction after urological surgery. BJU Int. 2020;126(2):286–291. doi:10.1111/bju.15091
22. Chung PH, Vanni AJ, Breyer BN, et al. Evaluation of generic versus condition-specific quality of life indicators for successful urethral stricture surgery. Urology. 2019;126:222–226. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2018.12.009
23. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' Committee on Practice Bulletins—Gynecology. Female sexual dysfunction: ACOG Practice Bulletin Number 213. Obstet Gynecol. 2019;134(1):e1–e18. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000003324
24. Neijenhuijs KI, Hooghiemstra N, Holtmaat K, et al. The Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) — a systematic review of measurement properties. J Sex Med. 2019;16(5):640–660. doi:10.1016/j.jsxm.2019.03.001
25. Derogatis LR, Revicki DA, Clayton AH. Instruments for screening, diagnosis, and management of patients with generalized acquired hypoactive sexual desire disorder. J Womens Health. 2020;29(6):806–814. doi:10.1089/jwh.2019.7917
26. Derogatis L, Clayton A, Lewis-D'Agostino D, Wunderlich G, Fu Y. Validation of the Female Sexual Distress Scale-Revised for assessing distress in women with hypoactive sexual desire disorder. J Sex Med. 2008;5(2):357–364. doi:10.1111/j.1743-6109.2007.00672.x
27. Clayton AH, Goldfischer ER, Goldstein I, et al. Validation of the Decreased Sexual Desire Screener (DSDS): a brief diagnostic instrument for generalized acquired female hypoactive sexual desire disorder (HSDD). J Sex Med. 2009;6(3):730–738. doi:10.1111/j.1743-6109.2008.01153.x
28. Clayton AH, Segraves RT, Leiblum S, et al. Reliability and validity of the Sexual Interest and Desire Inventory–Female (SIDI-F), a scale designed to measure severity of female hypoactive sexual desire disorder. J Sex Marital Ther. 2006;32(2):115–135. doi:10.1080/00926230500442300
29. Weinfurt KP, Lin L, Bruner DW, et al. Development and initial validation of the PROMIS Sexual Function and Satisfaction measures version 2.0. J Sex Med. 2015;12(9):1961–1974. doi:10.1111/jsm.12966
30. Carpenter JS, Jones SMW, Studts CR, et al. Female Sexual Function Index Short Version: A MsFLASH Item Response Analysis. Arch Sex Behav. 2016;45:1897–1905. doi:10.1007/s10508-016-0804-5
31. Derogatis LR, Rosen R, Leiblum S, Burnett A, Heiman J. The Female Sexual Distress Scale (FSDS): initial validation of a standardized scale for assessment of sexually related personal distress in women. J Sex Marital Ther. 2002;28:317–330. doi:10.1080/00926230290001448
32. IUGA. PISQ-IR instrument, translations and scoring resources. Accessed September 12, 2026.
33. NICE. Urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse in women: management (NG123), assessment recommendations. Accessed September 12, 2026.
34. Morey AF, Singla N, Carmel M, et al. Standing cough test for evaluation of post-prostatectomy incontinence: a pilot study. Can J Urol. 2017;24:8664–8669. Full paper.
35. ICIQ. ICIQ-UI Short Form: instrument summary and scoring range. Accessed September 12, 2026.
36. EAU. Management of non-neurogenic male LUTS: diagnostic evaluation, symptom questionnaires and diaries. 2026.
37. ICIQ. ICIQ-LUTSqol: instrument summary. Accessed September 12, 2026.
38. Uebersax JS, Wyman JF, Shumaker SA, McClish DK, Fantl JA. Short forms to assess life quality and symptom distress for urinary incontinence in women: the Incontinence Impact Questionnaire and the Urogenital Distress Inventory. Neurourol Urodyn. 1995;14:131–139. doi:10.1002/nau.1930140206.