Objective: To assess the validity of patient history and physical examination in elderly patients in the diagnosis ofvarious types of urinary incontinence., Design: Literature review., Method: Articles on the diagnosis of urinary incontinence in elderly patients (patient history and/or physical examination versus urodynamic testing) were identified using PubMed, Picarta (a Dutch database) and the reference lists of the articles found. Articles were published between January 1970 and August 2005. The applicability and quality of the articles were assessed using the relevant Cochrane criteria. 'Sufficient diagnostic evidence' was defined as a positive likelihood ratio > 5 and a negative likelihood ratio < 0.02., Results: 5 studies met the eligibility criteria; 4 were performed in the second-line setting and 1 in a general population. All 5 studies involved women aged 55 years or older. None of the 5 studies found a positive or negative likelihood ratio for providing sufficient diagnostic evidence for various types of urinary incontinence. In the study conducted in a general population, the positive and negative likelihood ratios for the presence of stress incontinence according to patient history and physical examination were 3.23 and 0.40, respectively., Conclusion: Few adequate studies have been reported on the validity of clinical evaluation in the diagnosis of urinary incontinence in older women, and no studies have been conducted in men. The validity of clinical evaluation has been demonstrated only in the diagnosis of stress incontinence in older women.