Michael Due Larsen1, Gunnar Lose2, Rikke Guldberg3,4, Kim Oren Gradel3,5. 1. Center for Clinical Epidemiology, Odense University Hospital, Sønderboulevard 29, Opg. 101, Odense, 5000, Denmark. michael.due.larsen@rsyd.dk. 2. Gynaecology and Obstetrics Department, Herlev Hospital & University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. 3. Center for Clinical Epidemiology, Odense University Hospital, Sønderboulevard 29, Opg. 101, Odense, 5000, Denmark. 4. Gynaecology and Obstetrics Department, Hospital Lillebaelt, Kolding, Denmark. 5. Research Unit of Clinical Epidemiology, Institute of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: In order to assess the outcome following surgery for urinary incontinence (UI) and pelvic organ prolapse (POP) the importance of patient-reported outcome measures, in addition to the clinical objective measures, has been recognised. The International Consultation on Incontinence has initiated the development and evaluation of disease-specific questionnaires (ICIQ) to compare the patient's degree of improvement. Alternatively, the Patient's Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I score) with an inherent before-after assessment has been widely accepted in recent studies. The aim of this study was to compare the PGI-I versus the ICIQ score for women undergoing UI or POP surgery. METHODS: This study is based on self-administered pre- and postoperative questionnaires, completed by women undergoing surgery for UI or POP in Denmark in 2013. Weighted Kappa statistics and 95 % limits of agreement method were used when comparing the PGI-I and ICIQ scores. RESULTS: Among the 3,310 women included the PGI-I score showed a higher improvement than the IQIC score, for UI 0.83 (CI 95 %: 0.80-0.85) vs 0.62 (0.60-0.64) and for POP 0.77 (0.75-0.78) vs 0.66 (0.65-0.67). CONCLUSIONS: The PGI-I score renders higher satisfaction than the ICIQ score and the PGI-I score overestimates the improvement following UI and POP surgery.
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: In order to assess the outcome following surgery for urinary incontinence (UI) and pelvic organ prolapse (POP) the importance of patient-reported outcome measures, in addition to the clinical objective measures, has been recognised. The International Consultation on Incontinence has initiated the development and evaluation of disease-specific questionnaires (ICIQ) to compare the patient's degree of improvement. Alternatively, the Patient's Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I score) with an inherent before-after assessment has been widely accepted in recent studies. The aim of this study was to compare the PGI-I versus the ICIQ score for women undergoing UI or POP surgery. METHODS: This study is based on self-administered pre- and postoperative questionnaires, completed by women undergoing surgery for UI or POP in Denmark in 2013. Weighted Kappa statistics and 95 % limits of agreement method were used when comparing the PGI-I and ICIQ scores. RESULTS: Among the 3,310 women included the PGI-I score showed a higher improvement than the IQIC score, for UI 0.83 (CI 95 %: 0.80-0.85) vs 0.62 (0.60-0.64) and for POP 0.77 (0.75-0.78) vs 0.66 (0.65-0.67). CONCLUSIONS: The PGI-I score renders higher satisfaction than the ICIQ score and the PGI-I score overestimates the improvement following UI and POP surgery.
Entities:
Keywords:
Patient-reported outcome measures; Patient’s Global Impression of Improvement; Pelvic organ prolapse; Questionnaires; Surgery; Urinary incontinence
Authors: Bernard T Haylen; Dirk de Ridder; Robert M Freeman; Steven E Swift; Bary Berghmans; Joseph Lee; Ash Monga; Eckhard Petri; Diaa E Rizk; Peter K Sand; Gabriel N Schaer Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2009-11-25 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Päivi K Karjalainen; Nina K Mattsson; Jyrki T Jalkanen; Kari Nieminen; Anna-Maija Tolppanen Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2020-09-02 Impact factor: 2.894