A Population-based survey of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) and symptom-specific bother: results from the Brazilian LUTS epidemiology study (BLUES)

Abstract

This is the largest population-based survey of LUTS in Brazil, using the 2002 ICS definitions. LUTS prevalence was high and increased with age among both genders in Brazil, whereas the rates of OAB were somewhat lower than previously reported. The high prevalence of urinary symptoms and the bother commonly associated with them highlight their importance to overall well-being.

A Population-based Survey of the Prevalence, Potential Risk Factors, and Symptom-specific Bother of Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms in Adult Chinese Women

“…Individual prevalence comparisons may be more appropriate than overall prevalence comparisons among studies. LUTS in our study more commonly involved urinary storage problems rather than voiding difficulties, which were also reported for Western studies [6,7,14,17,18,20]. In the EPIC study, the ICS definition of nocturia (two or more voids per night) yielded similar prevalence (24.0%) to ours [7].…”

“…This information could assist in targeting patients who need intervention. Our study revealed similar findings to those of Moreira et al [6], who also noted that urgency was usually associated with moderate or severe bother, whereas nocturia was usually associated with minor bother. Our study is partly in line with those of Coyne et al [27] and Møller et al [28], who reported that the symptoms most frequently rated bothersome were nocturia, SUI, and urgency [27,28], and is similar to a national Finnish study that showed a high burden of urgency and UUI [29].…”

“…The prevalence of any LUTS in our study was higher (55.5%) than in the large population-based EPIC study with an original five-nation European and North American survey (48.1%) [7] but lower than in an Internetbased study in the USA, the UK, and Sweden (76.3%) [5] and population-based studies in Brazil (84.1%) [6], Russia, the Czech Republic, and Turkey (81-87%) [17]. The prevalence of any LUTS was lower than that in Korea (68.9%) [18].…”

“…Some of the differences observed can probably be E U R O P E A N U R O L O G Y X X X ( 2 0 1 4 ) X X X -X X X attributed to methodological differences among studies. However, several racially and ethnically diverse studies also yielded ethnic differences in LUTS prevalence [5,6,21]. These differences may result from many sociocultural and environmental factors, in addition to genetic factors that can affect bladder health, and require further study to distinguish.…”

“…Many large-scale epidemiologic studies of LUTS have been conducted in Western countries, and prevalence estimates reported for LUTS subsets vary widely from 13% to 76% [4,5]. This variation could be due to differences in study populations, symptom assessment, data collection, or definitions used [3,6,7]. In China, there have been relatively few epidemiologic studies of LUTS.…”