Literature DB >> 29995735

Models for Predicting Recurrence, Complications, and Health Status in Women After Pelvic Organ Prolapse Surgery.

J Eric Jelovsek1, Kevin Chagin, Emily S Lukacz, Tracy L Nolen, Jonathan P Shepherd, Matthew D Barber, Vivian Sung, Linda Brubaker, Peggy A Norton, David D Rahn, Ariana L Smith, Alicia Ballard, Peter Jeppson, Susan F Meikle, Michael W Kattan.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To develop statistical models predicting recurrent pelvic organ prolapse, surgical complications, and change in health status 12 months after apical prolapse surgery.
METHODS: Logistic regression models were developed using a combined cohort from three randomized trials and two prospective cohort studies from 1,301 participants enrolled in surgical studies conducted by the Pelvic Floor Disorders Network. Composite recurrent prolapse was defined as prolapse beyond the hymen; the presence of bothersome bulge symptoms; or prolapse reoperation or retreatment within 12 months after surgery. Complications were defined as any serious adverse event or Dindo grade III complication within 12 months of surgery. Significant change in health status was defined as a minimum important change of SF-6D utility score (±0.035 points) from baseline. Thirty-two candidate risk factors were considered for each model and model accuracy was measured using concordance indices. All indices were internally validated using 1,000 bootstrap resamples to correct for bias.
RESULTS: The models accurately predicted composite recurrent prolapse (concordance index=0.72, 95% CI 0.69-0.76), bothersome vaginal bulge (concordance index=0.73, 95% CI 0.68-0.77), prolapse beyond the hymen (concordance index=0.74, 95% CI 0.70-0.77), serious adverse event (concordance index=0.60, 95% CI 0.56-0.64), Dindo grade III or greater complication (concordance index=0.62, 95% CI 0.58-0.66), and health status improvement (concordance index=0.64, 95% CI 0.62-0.67) or worsening (concordance index=0.63, 95% CI 0.60-0.67). Calibration curves demonstrated all models were accurate through clinically useful predicted probabilities.
CONCLUSION: These prediction models are able to provide accurate and discriminating estimates of prolapse recurrence, complications, and health status 12 months after prolapse surgery.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29995735      PMCID: PMC6060003          DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000002750

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0029-7844            Impact factor:   7.661


  17 in total

1.  Internal validation of predictive models: efficiency of some procedures for logistic regression analysis.

Authors:  E W Steyerberg; F E Harrell; G J Borsboom; M J Eijkemans; Y Vergouwe; J D Habbema
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 6.437

2.  The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-12.

Authors:  John E Brazier; Jennifer Roberts
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 2.983

3.  Validation of the Framingham coronary heart disease prediction scores: results of a multiple ethnic groups investigation.

Authors:  R B D'Agostino; S Grundy; L M Sullivan; P Wilson
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2001-07-11       Impact factor: 56.272

4.  Validation of the Gail et al. model of breast cancer risk prediction and implications for chemoprevention.

Authors:  B Rockhill; D Spiegelman; C Byrne; D J Hunter; G A Colditz
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2001-03-07       Impact factor: 13.506

5.  Comparison of 2 transvaginal surgical approaches and perioperative behavioral therapy for apical vaginal prolapse: the OPTIMAL randomized trial.

Authors:  Matthew D Barber; Linda Brubaker; Kathryn L Burgio; Holly E Richter; Ingrid Nygaard; Alison C Weidner; Shawn A Menefee; Emily S Lukacz; Peggy Norton; Joseph Schaffer; John N Nguyen; Diane Borello-France; Patricia S Goode; Sharon Jakus-Waldman; Cathie Spino; Lauren Klein Warren; Marie G Gantz; Susan F Meikle
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2014-03-12       Impact factor: 56.272

6.  A midurethral sling to reduce incontinence after vaginal prolapse repair.

Authors:  John T Wei; Ingrid Nygaard; Holly E Richter; Charles W Nager; Matthew D Barber; Kim Kenton; Cindy L Amundsen; Joseph Schaffer; Susan F Meikle; Cathie Spino
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2012-06-21       Impact factor: 91.245

7.  SF-6D utility index as measure of minimally important difference in health status change.

Authors:  Pranav K Gandhi; L Douglas Ried; Alex Bibbey; I-Chan Huang
Journal:  J Am Pharm Assoc (2003)       Date:  2012 Jan-Feb

8.  Prognostic nomogram for patients undergoing resection for adenocarcinoma of the pancreas.

Authors:  Murray F Brennan; Michael W Kattan; David Klimstra; Kevin Conlon
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 12.969

9.  Defining success after surgery for pelvic organ prolapse.

Authors:  Matthew D Barber; Linda Brubaker; Ingrid Nygaard; Thomas L Wheeler; Joeseph Schaffer; Zhen Chen; Cathie Spino
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2009-09       Impact factor: 7.661

10.  The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): II. Psychometric and clinical tests of validity in measuring physical and mental health constructs.

Authors:  C A McHorney; J E Ware; A E Raczek
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1993-03       Impact factor: 2.983

View more
  7 in total

Review 1.  Artificial intelligence (AI) in urology-Current use and future directions: An iTRUE study.

Authors:  Milap Shah; Nithesh Naik; Bhaskar K Somani; B M Zeeshan Hameed
Journal:  Turk J Urol       Date:  2020-05-27

2.  Predicting outcomes after intradetrusor onabotulinumtoxina for non-neurogenic urgency incontinence in women.

Authors:  Whitney K Hendrickson; Gongbo Xie; David D Rahn; Cindy L Amundsen; James A Hokanson; Megan Bradley; Ariana L Smith; Vivian W Sung; Anthony G Visco; Sheng Luo; J Eric Jelovsek
Journal:  Neurourol Urodyn       Date:  2021-12-02       Impact factor: 2.367

3.  Risk Factors for Surgical Failure and Worsening Pelvic Floor Symptoms Within 5 Years After Vaginal Prolapse Repair.

Authors:  Sharon Jakus-Waldman; Linda Brubaker; John Eric Jelovsek; Joseph I Schaffer; David R Ellington; Donna Mazloomdoost; Ryan Whitworth; Marie G Gantz
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2020-11       Impact factor: 7.623

4.  Immediate Postoperative Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification Measures and 2-Year Risk of Prolapse Recurrence.

Authors:  Lauren N Siff; Matthew D Barber; Halina M Zyczynski; Charles R Rardin; Sharon Jakus-Waldman; David D Rahn; Ariana L Smith; Donna Mazloomdoost; Amaanti Sridhar; Marie G Gantz
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2020-10       Impact factor: 7.623

5.  Expression of ArfGAP3 in Vaginal Anterior Wall of Patients With Pelvic Floor Organ Prolapse in Pelvic Organ Prolapse and Non-Pelvic Organ Prolapse Patients.

Authors:  Yu Sun; Bingshu Li; Danhua Lu; Cheng Liu; Shasha Hong; Li Hong
Journal:  Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg       Date:  2021-01-01       Impact factor: 1.913

6.  Clinical risk factors for recurrence of pelvic organ prolapse after primary native tissue prolapse repair.

Authors:  Barbara Bodner-Adler; Klaus Bodner; Greta Carlin; Oliver Kimberger; Julian Marschalek; Heinz Koelbl; Wolfgang Umek
Journal:  Wien Klin Wochenschr       Date:  2021-04-30       Impact factor: 1.704

7.  Comparison of the Quality of Life and Female Sexual Function Following Laparoscopic Pectopexy and Laparoscopic Sacrohysteropexy in Apical Prolapse Patients.

Authors:  Mehmet Obut; Süleyman Cemil Oğlak; Sedat Akgöl
Journal:  Gynecol Minim Invasive Ther       Date:  2021-04-14
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.