Skip to main content

Absorbent Products and the Pad-Weight Test

Absorbent products — pads, liners, pull-ups, diapers (briefs), underpads, and reusable washable variants — are the most widely used management strategy for urinary incontinence in both urology and urogynecology. They are containment products, not treatments: they reduce the adverse sequelae of leakage (skin damage, clothing soiling, odor) and improve coping while definitive therapy is pursued. The same products are used in reverse as a diagnostic and outcome tool through the pad-weight test.[1][2][3]

For external collection devices in men, see Condom Catheters. For mechanical penile compression, see Penile Clamp. For intravaginal continence devices, see Continence Pessary and Poise Impressa. For the SUI ladder, see Female Stress Incontinence Database.

Classification of Absorbent Products​

Products are classified by severity of incontinence and design.[2][3]

CategoryDesignsAbsorbencyNotes
Light incontinenceDisposable inserts; menstrual pads; washable pants with integral pad; washable inserts; pouches / leafs (men)50–500 gSmall, discreet; worn with close-fitting underwear[1]
Moderate–heavy (body-worn)Disposable insert pads with mesh pants; disposable diapers / briefs (all-in-ones); pull-ups; T-shaped diapers2,000–3,000+ g (typically only ~10% capacity used in practice)Larger, bulkier; day vs night variants[2]
UnderpadsBedpads and chairpads (disposable and washable)VariableBackup for body-worn products, primarily at night; chairpads not recommended routinely (dignity concerns)[2]

All major designs are available as disposable (single-use) or reusable (washable) variants. Superabsorbent polymers, introduced in the late 1980s, are now ubiquitous in disposable products and have substantially increased absorbency while reducing bulk.[2]

Guideline Position​

The AUA/SUFU 2024 OAB Guideline classifies pads, liners, diapers, absorbent underwear, and barrier creams as "incontinence management strategies" and recommends that clinicians discuss these with all patients with urgency urinary incontinence (Expert Opinion). No RCTs have compared the clinical effectiveness of, or patient satisfaction with, these strategies head-to-head.[1]

The NEJM stress-incontinence review notes that absorbent products "play an important role in the care of women with stress incontinence" and that purpose-made incontinence pads outperform menstrual pads for leakage prevention, though they cost more.[4]

Gender, Setting, and Cost-Effectiveness​

A landmark UK Health Technology Assessment (Fader 2008, three crossover trials, 270 participants across community and nursing-home settings) defined the contemporary preference and cost-effectiveness landscape:[5]

PopulationPreferred designMost cost-effective design
Women, daytime and nighttimeDisposable pull-upsDisposable inserts (most cost-effective alternative; in nursing homes at night, disposable diapers are better)[2][5]
Men, day and nightDisposable diapers (briefs)Disposable diapers — most cost-effective for men in both settings[2][5]
Washable productsBetter for nighttime leakageUnacceptable to ~75% of women; ~two-thirds of men found them acceptable at night[5]

Combining designs — pull-ups when going out, cheaper inserts at home — is often more effective and less expensive than a single design.[2][5]

For light incontinence in women, the preference hierarchy is: disposable inserts > menstrual pads > washable pants with integral pad > washable inserts. Many women use menstrual pads because of lower cost and reduced stigma despite inferior leakage performance.[3][4]

Post-Prostatectomy Incontinence — A Major Use Case​

Absorbent pads are the dominant containment strategy for post-prostatectomy incontinence (PPI):

  • ProtecT trial: pad use rose from 1% at baseline to 46% at 6 months post-RP, declining to 17% by year 6 (vs 4–8% in radiotherapy / active-monitoring arms).[6]
  • A German / Austrian / Swiss cohort (n = 14,920): 57% of men used ≥ 1 pad/day at 12 months post-RP; 12% used ≥ 2 pads/day.[7]
  • Austrian insurance-claims data: prescribed-pad rates of 12.6% at 3 months, declining to 4.9% at 36 months post-RP.[8]
  • A trial of pads vs devices (sheaths, body-worn urinals, penile clamps) in persistent PPI found pads were best for everyday activities and nighttime use, most comfortable when dry, and easiest to use — but most likely to leak and most uncomfortable when wet. Most men preferred a combination of pads and devices for different activities.[9]

The Pad-Weight Test​

The pad-weight test is a noninvasive tool to quantify leakage severity and monitor treatment response. Despite its value, it is clearly underutilized — fewer than 10% of urologists perform it routinely.[10]

TestUsePerformance
1-hour pad test (ICS-standardized)Initial diagnosisSensitivity 60–93%, specificity 60–84%[11]
24-hour pad testGold standard for treatment outcomesHigher reproducibility than 1-hour for outcome assessment[10][12]
7-day pad testTreatment outcomes; captures peak leakage daysExcellent test-retest reliability; reclassifies up to 12 patients misclassified by 24-hour test alone[12]
Pads-per-day (PPD) countPractical follow-up toolStrong correlation with 24-h pad test (ρ = 0.94 overall); 0–1 PPD effectively excludes moderate–severe; ≥ 5 PPD reliably identifies severe; 2–4 PPD has wide variability and warrants formal pad-weight testing[13]

Threshold: in JAMA's general-medicine review, abnormal pad-test result is defined as > 15 g pad-weight gain.[14]

Incontinence-Associated Dermatitis (IAD)​

Prolonged pad use carries a risk of IAD, an irritant contact dermatitis with prevalence 3–50% depending on setting.[15][16] For the dedicated treatment of barrier-cream selection, structured cleanse-moisturize-protect protocols, cyanoacrylate-based protectants for denuded skin, and management of established IAD, see Barrier Creams & IAD Prevention.

  • Clinical features. Erythema, maceration, erosion, scaling, frequent secondary infection; symptoms of burning, itching, and pain.[15][16]
  • Risk factors. Faecal incontinence (especially liquid stool), reduced mobility, higher BMI, and low Braden scale scores.[16]
  • Prevention. Reduce skin exposure to urine and stool: use high-absorbency products with superabsorbent polymers and water-vapor-permeable back sheets, gentle cleansing, barrier creams / pastes, and regular pad changes. Dry wipes appear more protective than soapy wipes for skin cleansing.[15][17][18]
  • Disposable vs reusable. For women with large urine losses, disposable products may be associated with fewer skin problems than nondisposable.[4]
  • Brand variability. The brand and quality of absorbent product can significantly influence IAD incidence.[18]

Quality-of-Life Impact​

The ICIQ-PadPROM (Yearwood Martin 2018) is the first validated questionnaire specifically designed to measure the QoL impact of absorbent product use, with four domains: pad design / physical effects, psychological effects, social effects / pad leakage, and burden of pad use.[19]

  • The dominant QoL driver is achieving effective and discreet containment; high anxiety is associated with perceived risk of poor pad performance and lack of discreteness.[20]
  • The five most important pad characteristics for daytime use are: ability to hold urine, contain smell, stay in place, discreteness, and comfort when wet.[20]
  • Women using pads 24 hours/day (~one-third of incontinent women) have significantly worse QoL across nearly all domains and lower QALYs vs daytime-only users.[21]

Practical Counseling​

  • Purpose-made incontinence pads outperform menstrual pads for leakage prevention; many patients still default to menstrual pads because of cost and stigma — flag the trade-off.[3][4]
  • There is no single best design — optimal management often combines designs across circumstances (day vs night, home vs out).[5][2]
  • Discuss skin care with barrier creams and gentle cleansing with all chronic pad users to prevent IAD.[15][22]
  • Frame pad use as a management strategy while pursuing definitive treatment (behavioral therapy, pharmacotherapy, devices, or surgery as appropriate).[1][23]
  • For PPI patients, expect that most prefer pad + device combinations rather than a single containment strategy.[9]

Key Principles​

  • Absorbent products are the most widely used incontinence management strategy but contain rather than treat leakage — they sit alongside definitive therapy, not in place of it.[1]
  • No head-to-head RCTs compare the strategies; choice rests on patient preference, severity, and setting.[1]
  • Women generally prefer disposable pull-ups (most expensive); disposable inserts are the most cost-effective alternative. Men prefer and most cost-effectively use disposable diapers.[5]
  • Combining designs is usually more effective and less expensive than a single product.[5]
  • Post-RP, ~46% of men use pads at 6 months, declining to ~17% by 6 years; PPI is the dominant urologic use case.[6][7]
  • The 24-hour pad test is the outcome-assessment gold standard; 7-day pad testing captures peak-leakage days; PPD ≥ 5 reliably identifies severe leakage.[10][12][13]
  • IAD risk increases with prolonged pad use and faecal incontinence; high-absorbency products with vapor-permeable back sheets, dry wipes, and barrier creams are protective.[15][17]
  • 24-hour pad use (~one-third of incontinent women) is independently associated with worse QoL and lower QALYs.[21]

References​

1. 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.

2. Fader M, Cottenden AM, Getliffe K. Absorbent products for moderate-heavy urinary and/or faecal incontinence in women and men. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008;(4):CD007408. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD007408.

3. Fader M, Cottenden AM, Getliffe K. Absorbent products for light urinary incontinence in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;(2):CD001406. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD001406.pub2.

4. Rogers RG. Urinary stress incontinence in women. N Engl J Med. 2008;358(10):1029-36. doi:10.1056/NEJMcp0707023.

5. Fader M, Cottenden A, Getliffe K, et al. Absorbent products for urinary/faecal incontinence: a comparative evaluation of key product designs. Health Technol Assess. 2008;12(29):iii-iv, ix-185. doi:10.3310/hta12290.

6. 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.

7. Hammerer P, Sibert N, Breidenbach C, et al. EPIC-26 urinary incontinence score results and pad use 12 months after radical prostatectomy for localized or (locally) advanced prostate cancer: results of a cohort of 14,920 patients from 118 certified centers. J Clin Oncol. 2023;41(Suppl 16):e17102. doi:10.1200/JCO.2023.41.16_suppl.e17102.

8. Mun DH, Yang L, Shariat SF, et al. Difference in incontinence pad use between patients after radical prostatectomy and cancer-free population with subgroup analysis for open vs minimally invasive radical prostatectomy: a descriptive analysis of insurance claims-based data. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(13):6891. doi:10.3390/ijerph18136891.

9. Macaulay M, Broadbridge J, Gage H, et al. A trial of devices for urinary incontinence after treatment for prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2015;116(3):432-42. doi:10.1111/bju.13016.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. Martínez-Cuenca E, Sánchez JV, Bonillo MÁ, et al. Longer is better than shorter: the added value of the seven-day pad test in the post-radical prostatectomy urinary incontinence. Neurourol Urodyn. 2021;40(4):994-1000. doi:10.1002/nau.24655.

13. Domínguez Argomedo R, de Pablos-Rodríguez P, Palop Moscardó A, et al. The 24-h pad test in the assessment of post-prostatectomy incontinence: is there still a role for counting pads per day? BJU Int. 2026. doi:10.1111/bju.70224.

14. Holroyd-Leduc JM, Tannenbaum C, Thorpe KE, Straus SE. What type of urinary incontinence does this woman have? JAMA. 2008;299(12):1446-56. doi:10.1001/jama.299.12.1446.

15. Kottner J, Dissemond J. Incontinence-associated dermatitis in older adults: a critical review of risk factors, prevention and management. Drugs Aging. 2025. doi:10.1007/s40266-025-01227-z.

16. Graham T, Beeckman D, Kottner J, et al. Skin cleansers and leave-on product interventions for preventing incontinence-associated dermatitis in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2025;7:CD011627. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD011627.pub3.

17. Runeman B. Skin interaction with absorbent hygiene products. Clin Dermatol. 2008;26(1):45-51. doi:10.1016/j.clindermatol.2007.10.002.

18. Garcia-Ruiz MP, Torres-Bautista RM, Lopez-Franco MD, et al. Influence of sociodemographic factors and incontinence care practices on the development of incontinence-associated dermatitis. J Clin Med. 2026;15(5):1752. doi:10.3390/jcm15051752.

19. Yearwood Martin C, Murphy C, Cotterill N, et al. Development and psychometric evaluation of ICIQ-PadPROM: a quality of life questionnaire to assess the treatment effect of absorbent continence products. Neurourol Urodyn. 2018;37(5):1650-1657. doi:10.1002/nau.23389.

20. Getliffe K, Fader M, Cottenden A, Jamieson K, Green N. Absorbent products for incontinence: 'treatment effects' and impact on quality of life. J Clin Nurs. 2007;16(10):1936-45. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2702.2007.01812.x.

21. Grzybowska ME, Wydra D. 24/7 usage of continence pads and quality of life impairment in women with urinary incontinence. Int J Clin Pract. 2019;73(8):e13267. doi:10.1111/ijcp.13267.

22. Beele H, Smet S, Van Damme N, Beeckman D. Incontinence-associated dermatitis: pathogenesis, contributing factors, prevention and management options. Drugs Aging. 2018;35(1):1-10. doi:10.1007/s40266-017-0507-1.

23. Silva LA, Andriolo RB, Atallah ÁN, da Silva EM. Surgery for stress urinary incontinence due to presumed sphincter deficiency after prostate surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;(9):CD008306. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD008306.pub3.