INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The objective of the study was to establish the effects of additional diagnostic tests compared to a consensus outcome on treatment selection in primary pelvic organ prolapse. METHODS: Three expert gynecologists individually defined a management plan in 53 patients after magnetic resonance imaging, defecography, urodynamic, and anorectal function test information was provided. These management plans were compared with basic treatment advices in the absence of any test and with consensus advices (opinion-based references). The experts assigned a subjective score (assigned diagnostic value [ADV], 0-100%) to rate the test's relative importance. RESULTS: On average, additional diagnostic testing resulted in a revised initial management plan in 38% of the cases; 24% of the individual management plans did not meet the consensus reference. Overall defecography was regarded most valuable (ADV range 19-65%) vs. magnetic resonance imaging rated least (ADV range 0-37%). CONCLUSIONS: Although additional diagnostic tests frequently led to adaptations of basic treatment proposals, consensus was not reached in a fourth of the cases.
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The objective of the study was to establish the effects of additional diagnostic tests compared to a consensus outcome on treatment selection in primary pelvic organ prolapse. METHODS: Three expert gynecologists individually defined a management plan in 53 patients after magnetic resonance imaging, defecography, urodynamic, and anorectal function test information was provided. These management plans were compared with basic treatment advices in the absence of any test and with consensus advices (opinion-based references). The experts assigned a subjective score (assigned diagnostic value [ADV], 0-100%) to rate the test's relative importance. RESULTS: On average, additional diagnostic testing resulted in a revised initial management plan in 38% of the cases; 24% of the individual management plans did not meet the consensus reference. Overall defecography was regarded most valuable (ADV range 19-65%) vs. magnetic resonance imaging rated least (ADV range 0-37%). CONCLUSIONS: Although additional diagnostic tests frequently led to adaptations of basic treatment proposals, consensus was not reached in a fourth of the cases.
Authors: R C Bump; A Mattiasson; K Bø; L P Brubaker; J O DeLancey; P Klarskov; B L Shull; A R Smith Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 1996-07 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: H S Kaufman; J L Buller; J R Thompson; H K Pannu; S L DeMeester; R R Genadry; D A Bluemke; B Jones; J L Rychcik; G W Cundiff Journal: Dis Colon Rectum Date: 2001-11 Impact factor: 4.585
Authors: Jaap Stoker; Elena Rociu; J L H Ruud Bosch; Embert J Messelink; Victor P M van der Hulst; Annette G Groenendijk; Marinus J C Eijkemans; Johan S Laméris Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2003-04-12 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Giulio Aniello Santoro; Andrzej Paweł Wieczorek; S Abbas Shobeiri; Elizabeth R Mueller; Jacek Pilat; Aleksandra Stankiewicz; Giuseppe Battistella Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2010-08-11 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Abdul H Sultan; Ash Monga; Joseph Lee; Anton Emmanuel; Christine Norton; Giulio Santoro; Tracy Hull; Bary Berghmans; Stuart Brody; Bernard T Haylen Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2016-10-24 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: A P Wieczorek; A Stankiewicz; G A Santoro; M M Woźniak; M Bogusiewicz; T Rechberger Journal: World J Urol Date: 2011-06-14 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Isabelle Ma van Gruting; Aleksandra Stankiewicz; Ranee Thakar; Giulio A Santoro; Joanna IntHout; Abdul H Sultan Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2021-09-23