Retrospective cross-sectional study proposes new diagnostic criteria for nocturnal polyuria in women, addressing aging physiology implications.
Objectives: To investigate the physiological validity of current diagnostic criteria for nocturnal polyuria and to derive and validate a symptom-anchored revision consistent with female aging. Methods: This retrospective cross-sectional study analyzed 3-day bladder diaries from 3,000 women with lower urinary tract symptoms. We assessed age-specific nocturnal polyuria prevalence using current International Continence Society definitions (nocturnal polyuria index ≥33% for women >66 y and ≥20% for women ≤65 y). To address discrepancies with aging physiology, a novel cutoff was derived using the Youden index anchored to symptom bother (King’s Health Questionnaire nocturia severity score ≥1). The proposed composite definition (nocturnal polyuria index ≥28% plus symptom score ≥1) was validated using multivariable regression and randomized split-sample validation (training: n=2,500; validation: n=500). Results: Under current criteria, nocturnal polyuria prevalence was higher in younger women (75.5%) compared with older women (50.5%). Multivariable analysis identified age as a protective factor (odds ratio: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.95-0.97), inconsistent with physiology. Conversely, the proposed new definition identified age as a significant positive risk factor (odds ratio: 1.03; 95% CI: 1.02-1.04). Prevalence remained stable at 26.8% (one-in-four) in premenopausal women, rising linearly to 46.3% (one-in-two) in postmenopausal women. Internal validation confirmed model stability (area under curve: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.83-0.90). Conclusions: Current age-stratified thresholds of nocturnal polyuria result in discrepancies with aging physiology. The proposed framework establishes a physiologically plausible standard. By anchoring symptom bother score and nocturnal polyuria index of 28%, this definition facilitates the identification of symptomatic women and highlights the distinct impact of menopause.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wu et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: