INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Currently, there is no global outcome assessment index in prolapse research. Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) has only been validated in incontinence. Our aim was to validate its use following prolapse surgery. METHODS: Women with prolapse were recruited from waiting lists and assessed objectively (pelvic organ prolapse quantification system (POP-Q)). Quality of life (QoL) was assessed with prolapse QoL questionnaire (pQoL). Patient goal achievement (visual analogue scale (VAS)) determined subjective satisfaction and PGI-I indicated overall satisfaction. We established construct validity of PGI-I by correlating final PGI-I response with other measures of response, measured at 1 year: (POP-Q/pQoL/VAS) RESULTS: There was excellent test-retest reliability and correlation between PGI-I and other outcome measures. CONCLUSION: We believe this is the first study validating PGI-I as a global index of response to prolapse surgery. This may be a valuable addition not only in clinical practice but also in trials comparing surgical interventions.
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Currently, there is no global outcome assessment index in prolapse research. Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) has only been validated in incontinence. Our aim was to validate its use following prolapse surgery. METHODS:Women with prolapse were recruited from waiting lists and assessed objectively (pelvic organ prolapse quantification system (POP-Q)). Quality of life (QoL) was assessed with prolapse QoL questionnaire (pQoL). Patient goal achievement (visual analogue scale (VAS)) determined subjective satisfaction and PGI-I indicated overall satisfaction. We established construct validity of PGI-I by correlating final PGI-I response with other measures of response, measured at 1 year: (POP-Q/pQoL/VAS) RESULTS: There was excellent test-retest reliability and correlation between PGI-I and other outcome measures. CONCLUSION: We believe this is the first study validating PGI-I as a global index of response to prolapse surgery. This may be a valuable addition not only in clinical practice but also in trials comparing surgical interventions.
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: Philip Toozs-Hobson; Robert Freeman; Matthew Barber; Christopher Maher; Bernard Haylen; Stavros Athanasiou; Steven Swift; Kristene Whitmore; Gamal Ghoniem; Dirk de Ridder Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2012-05 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Louise T S Arenholt; Bodil Ginnerup Pedersen; Karin Glavind; Susanne Greisen; Karl M Bek; Marianne Glavind-Kristensen Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2018-12-01 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Brooke Gurland; Maria Emilia Carvalho E Carvalho; Beri Ridgeway; Marie Fidela R Paraiso; Tracy Hull; Massarat Zutshi Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2017-08-07 Impact factor: 2.571