Background: In assessing male lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) by the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), misunderstanding and misinterpretation were detected in low-educated and elderly patients. Thus, a modified IPSS Thai version had been created to solve these problems.

Objective: To evaluate efficacy of the modified IPSS Thai version that had been developed and compare it to the original one.

Materials and Methods: The present study was conducted in male participants having LUTS. Each participant was tested with the original and the modified IPSS Thai version. Data on age, educational level, and duration time to complete each questionnaire were collected. They were asked to select the preferred easier-to-understand version. The accuracy and validity of the modified version was assessed.

Results: Overall, 101 participants, with a mean age of 64 years, were included. The interclass correlation of the modified and the original Thai IPSS was 0.932 with the Cronbach’s alpha score of 0.906 verifying no difference in total score of both versions. The mean (±SD) total score of the modified Thai IPSS was 13.82±7.88 while the original version was 14.19±8.58 demonstrated no significant difference (p=0.376). Five responders requested for assistance or explanation for the original version, but only 1 patient did for the modified one. Most participants (72.3%) voted for the modified Thai IPSS as the preferred easier-to-understand version. The mean (±SD) time to complete the modified version was 127.07±59.02 seconds, which was significantly less than the original one at 156.53±63.86 seconds (p<0.001).

Conclusion: In assessing male LUTS, the modified Thai IPSS was more practical, easier to understand, and less time-consuming than the original version for all ages over 40 years and all education levels. The content validity of the modified version was comparable to the original one. Therefore, the modified Thai IPSS was useful in clinical practice.

Keywords: International Prostate Symptom Score; IPSS; Thai version; Modification; Validity; Efficacy

DOI: 10.35755/jmedassocthai.2023.07.13871

Received 8 May 2023 | Revised 16 June 2023 | Accepted 23 June 2023