OBJECTIVE: This analysis compared 3 continuous variables as summary support loss (SL) scores with pelvic organ prolapse (POP) quantification (POPQ) ordinal stages. STUDY DESIGN: We used pooled baseline data from 1141 subjects in 3 randomized trials (CARE, n = 322; OPUS, n = 380; ATLAS, n = 439) to test 3 SL measures. The relative responsiveness was assessed using the standardized response mean of 2-year outcome data from the CARE trial. RESULTS: Each SL measure was strongly correlated with POPQ ordinal staging; the single most distal POPQ point had the strongest correlation. Improvements in anatomic support were weakly correlated with improvements in POP Distress Inventory (r = 0.17-0.24; P < .01 for each) but not with changes in POP Impact Questionnaire for all measures of SL or POPQ stage. CONCLUSION: While continuous, single number summary measures compared favorably to ordinal POPQ staging system, the single most distal POPQ point may be preferable to POPQ ordinal stages to summarize or compare group data.
OBJECTIVE: This analysis compared 3 continuous variables as summary support loss (SL) scores with pelvic organ prolapse (POP) quantification (POPQ) ordinal stages. STUDY DESIGN: We used pooled baseline data from 1141 subjects in 3 randomized trials (CARE, n = 322; OPUS, n = 380; ATLAS, n = 439) to test 3 SL measures. The relative responsiveness was assessed using the standardized response mean of 2-year outcome data from the CARE trial. RESULTS: Each SL measure was strongly correlated with POPQ ordinal staging; the single most distal POPQ point had the strongest correlation. Improvements in anatomic support were weakly correlated with improvements in POP Distress Inventory (r = 0.17-0.24; P < .01 for each) but not with changes in POP Impact Questionnaire for all measures of SL or POPQ stage. CONCLUSION: While continuous, single number summary measures compared favorably to ordinal POPQ staging system, the single most distal POPQ point may be preferable to POPQ ordinal stages to summarize or compare group data.
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: A M Weber; P Abrams; L Brubaker; G Cundiff; G Davis; R R Dmochowski; J Fischer; T Hull; I Nygaard; A C Weidner Journal: Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct Date: 2001
Authors: Ingrid Nygaard; Matthew D Barber; Kathryn L Burgio; Kimberly Kenton; Susan Meikle; Joseph Schaffer; Cathie Spino; William E Whitehead; Jennifer Wu; Debra J Brody Journal: JAMA Date: 2008-09-17 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Linda Brubaker; Ingrid Nygaard; Holly E Richter; Anthony Visco; Anne M Weber; Geoffrey W Cundiff; Paul Fine; Chiara Ghetti; Morton B Brown Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2008-07 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: John Wei; Ingrid Nygaard; Holly Richter; Morton Brown; Matthew Barber; Kimberly Kenton; Charles Nager; Joseph Schaffer; Anthony Visco; Anne Weber Journal: Clin Trials Date: 2009-04 Impact factor: 2.486
Authors: Charles W Nager; Halina Zyczynski; Rebecca G Rogers; Matthew D Barber; Holly E Richter; Anthony G Visco; Charles R Rardin; Heidi Harvie; Dennis Wallace; Susan F Meikle Journal: Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg Date: 2016 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 2.091