Abstract

Introduction The pad test is an assessment tool for urinary incontinence (UI) severity classification and therapeutic response monitoring. However, the reliability and reproducibility of this test have been questioned. Objectives To summarize the evidence regarding the accuracy measures and reproducibility of different pad test protocols for assessing UI. Methods A systematic review of the diagnostic accuracy of this tool was performed (CRD42020219392). Eligibility criteria: Studies reporting data on the accuracy measures and reproducibility of the pad test when used for detecting UI in adult men and women. Data sources: MEDLINE, Science Direct, Cochrane, Web of Science, LILACS, and Pedro. Data extraction and synthesis: Two reviewers independently screened the articles, extracted the data, and evaluated the risk of bias (RoB) using the QUADAS-2 tool. Results From 1048 studies, 18 studies were included. Eight of these reported accuracy data, and 12 reported reproducibility properties. A total of 1070 individuals were analyzed, whose mean age ranged from 20 to 90 years. The accuracy of the long-duration protocols was generally moderate to high (sensitivity, 60%-93%; specificity, 60%-84%). The 1-h protocols obtained higher accuracy values. The overall reproducibility was moderate to high (kappa >= 0.66). Limitations The RoB was high and, due to different cutoff points adopted by studies, the bivariate model was not satisfied to perform a meta-analysis. Discussion The 1-h pad test was more accurate but less reproducible when compared to the long-duration tests. Pad test results should be used with caution in clinical practice.