Jordi Sabadell1, Sabina Salicrú2, Anabel Montero-Armengol2, Núria Rodriguez-Mias2, Antonio Gil-Moreno2, Jose L Poza2. 1. Urogynecology and Pelvic Floor Unit, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hospital Universitari Vall d'Hebron, Vall d'Hebron Barcelona Hospital Campus, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Passeig Vall d'Hebron 119-129, E-08035, Barcelona, Spain. jsabadell@vhebron.net. 2. Urogynecology and Pelvic Floor Unit, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hospital Universitari Vall d'Hebron, Vall d'Hebron Barcelona Hospital Campus, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Passeig Vall d'Hebron 119-129, E-08035, Barcelona, Spain.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Stress urinary incontinence (SUI) may appear after the correction of pelvic organ prolapse (POP). The aim of this study was to externally validate a described predictive model for de novo SUI and to assess its clinical performance when used as a diagnostic test. METHODS: This was a retrospective descriptive study on a cohort of consecutive women treated in our institution. The main outcome used to validate the model was the presence of objective or subjective SUI 1 year after surgery. A receiver operating characteristic curve was generated from our population to evaluate the predictive accuracy and to compare it with the original model. A cutoff point of ≥50% was used to evaluate its clinical performance as a diagnostic test. RESULTS: Of the full cohort, 169 women were suitable for analysis. The rate of de novo SUI was 11.8%. The predictive accuracy of the model in our population was similar to the original [area under the curve (AUC) = 0.69; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.58-0.80). However, its performance measures when evaluated as a diagnostic test were low: positive likelihood ratio = 2.71 and negative likelihood ratio = 0.86. Only 15 women presented a positive test result. CONCLUSIONS: External validation of the model found a global predictive accuracy similar to that of the original model. Despite the study being underpowered to give firm conclusions, the test did not show a good clinical performance when applied to our population with low de novo SUI prevalence. A larger sample size is needed to validate the model conclusively.
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Stress urinary incontinence (SUI) may appear after the correction of pelvic organ prolapse (POP). The aim of this study was to externally validate a described predictive model for de novo SUI and to assess its clinical performance when used as a diagnostic test. METHODS: This was a retrospective descriptive study on a cohort of consecutive women treated in our institution. The main outcome used to validate the model was the presence of objective or subjective SUI 1 year after surgery. A receiver operating characteristic curve was generated from our population to evaluate the predictive accuracy and to compare it with the original model. A cutoff point of ≥50% was used to evaluate its clinical performance as a diagnostic test. RESULTS: Of the full cohort, 169 women were suitable for analysis. The rate of de novo SUI was 11.8%. The predictive accuracy of the model in our population was similar to the original [area under the curve (AUC) = 0.69; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.58-0.80). However, its performance measures when evaluated as a diagnostic test were low: positive likelihood ratio = 2.71 and negative likelihood ratio = 0.86. Only 15 women presented a positive test result. CONCLUSIONS: External validation of the model found a global predictive accuracy similar to that of the original model. Despite the study being underpowered to give firm conclusions, the test did not show a good clinical performance when applied to our population with low de novo SUI prevalence. A larger sample size is needed to validate the model conclusively.
Entities:
Keywords:
De novo incontinence; External validation; Model performance; Pelvic organ prolapse; Predictive model; Stress urinary incontinence
Authors: J Eric Jelovsek; Kevin Chagin; Linda Brubaker; Rebecca G Rogers; Holly E Richter; Lily Arya; Matthew D Barber; Jonathan P Shepherd; Tracy L Nolen; Peggy Norton; Vivian Sung; Shawn Menefee; Nazema Siddiqui; Susan F Meikle; Michael W Kattan Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2014-02 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: J M van der Ploeg; K Oude Rengerink; A van der Steen; J H S van Leeuwen; J Stekelenburg; M Y Bongers; M Weemhoff; B W Mol; C H van der Vaart; J-P W R Roovers Journal: BJOG Date: 2015-03-09 Impact factor: 6.531
Authors: Ellen J M Lensen; Mariella I J Withagen; Kirsten B Kluivers; Alfredo L Milani; Mark E Vierhout Journal: Neurourol Urodyn Date: 2012-09-28 Impact factor: 2.696
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
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: Jeannine Marie Miranne; Robert Eric Gutman; Andrew Ian Sokol; Amy Josephine Park; Cheryl Bernadette Iglesia Journal: Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg Date: 2017 Jan/Feb Impact factor: 2.091
Authors: Lore Schierlitz; Peter L Dwyer; Anna Rosamilia; Alison De Souza; Christine Murray; Elizabeth Thomas; Richard Hiscock; Chahin Achtari Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2013-06-28 Impact factor: 2.894