Research criteria versus clinical criteria for interstitial cystitis

Open Access
Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
In March 2003 experts on interstitial cystitis (IC) from around the world met in Kyoto, Japan for a series of workshops intended to define areas of agreement and difference in the approach to this disease. This workshop explored the diagnostic criteria IC in the clinical and research settings. The NIDDK criteria are used almost universally for research but there is tremendous disparity in the clinics and no consensus at all as to the best practice in diagnosing IC for clinical purposes. Throughout the world many physicians use the NIDDK research criteria for clinical diagnosis; in some countries this is standard. Undoubtedly, this mandates under‐diagnosis and denies treatment to many patients. Still, a majority feel that one diagnostic system is mandatory to promote clarity in communication. The group called for two initiatives to help advance this area of controversy: (1) a large‐scale, prospective study critically examining the role of cystoscopy, bladder distention, and biopsy in the diagnosis of IC; (2) a concerted effort to develop a single evidence‐based guideline or algorithm that would be flexible enough to meet the needs of clinicians, researchers, and patients.