The aim of this study was to compare a Web app developed by the American Urogynecologic Society, called “BladderTrakHer,” to the traditional paper voiding diary (PVD) for reliability and satisfaction.Methods
Women presenting to our urogynecology practice with lower urinary tract symptom and access to an iPhone/iPad were randomized to a 3-day electronic voiding diary (EVD), using the BladderTrakHer Web app or PVD. Participants then completed a second voiding diary using the alternate format. Estimated fluid intake and output, number of voids, and episodes of incontinence were compared between formats. Patient and practitioner surveys assessed ease of use, ease of data interpretation, time to data entry, and overall satisfaction.Results
Thirty-one of 122 patients completed both diary formats and the survey. The EVD and PVD showed good test-retest reliability. Patients recorded a higher number of entries for both voids and leaks while using the PVD (28.0 vs 25.5 [P = 0.03] and 4.5 vs 2.8 [P = 0.02], respectively). There was no significant difference in time to data entry among diary formats; 51.6% of patients preferred the EVD, and 78% of patients would prefer an electronic format if the app were improved. Four of 6 practitioners found the PVD easier to interpret, but all stated a preference for an EVD if the data were presented in a more organized fashion.Conclusions
The use of an EVD is acceptable and reliable in our population of adult female patients with lower urinary tract symptom. Electronic voiding diary and PVD have good test-retest reliability, although the number of voids and leaks entered is slightly lower for the EVD.