Brigitte Fatton1, Jean-François Hermieu2, Jean-Philippe Lucot3, Philippe Debodinance4, Florence Cour5, Sandrine Alonso6, Renaud de Tayrac7,8. 1. Obstertrics and Gynecology Department, CHU Nîmes, University of Montpellier, Nîmes, France. 2. Urology Department, Bichat University Hospital, Paris, France. 3. Service de gynécologie-obstétrique, hôpital Saint-Vincent-de-Paul, groupe des hôpitaux de l'institut catholique de Lille (GHICL), boulevard de Belfort, 59000, Lille, France. 4. Obstertrics and Gynecology Department, Dunkerque Hospital, Dunkerque, France. 5. Urology Department, Foch Hospital, Suresnes, France. 6. Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, Public Health and Innovation in Methodology (BESPIM), CHU Nîmes, University of Montpellier, Nîmes, France. 7. Obstertrics and Gynecology Department, CHU Nîmes, University of Montpellier, Nîmes, France. renaud.detayrac@chu-nimes.fr. 8. Service de Gynécologie-Obstétrique, CHU Carémeau, Place du Pr Robert Debré, 30900, Nîmes, France. renaud.detayrac@chu-nimes.fr.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The aim of this study was to clinically validate the French-translated PISQ-IR in a French-speaking population of women with pelvic floor disorders. METHODS: We aimed to recruit 300 women to account for potential attrition secondary to failure to respond or loss to follow-up. Women were enrolled as part of an RCT and from a separate specific study. Both studies included surgically managed patients. Data were collected at recruitment, visit 1 (V1), V2 (9-12 months postoperatively) and V3 (V2 + 5-15 days). Participants also completed a PFDI 20, ICI-Q and FSFI and were assessed by POP-Q. RESULTS: A total of 297 women were recruited between 18 January 2013 and 18 January 2016. Data were available for 291, 148 and 110 participants at V1, V2 and V3, respectively. The non-response rate for the NSA items varied from 5% to 30%, while for SA women, the non-response rate for the items varied from 0% to 15%. The tool was deemed reliable for five domains of the summary score. We also identified that several sections demonstrated acceptable to good temporal stability. A statistically significant score change was identified in different domains in the participants categorized as improved on either PGI-I or POP-Q. We also identified moderate to strong correlations between PISQ-IR and FSFI. CONCLUSIONS: The French translated PISQ-IR has several strengths in support of its validity. Our findings confirm the validity of the summary scores in addition to the item-based initial scoring system.
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The aim of this study was to clinically validate the French-translated PISQ-IR in a French-speaking population of women with pelvic floor disorders. METHODS: We aimed to recruit 300 women to account for potential attrition secondary to failure to respond or loss to follow-up. Women were enrolled as part of an RCT and from a separate specific study. Both studies included surgically managed patients. Data were collected at recruitment, visit 1 (V1), V2 (9-12 months postoperatively) and V3 (V2 + 5-15 days). Participants also completed a PFDI 20, ICI-Q and FSFI and were assessed by POP-Q. RESULTS: A total of 297 women were recruited between 18 January 2013 and 18 January 2016. Data were available for 291, 148 and 110 participants at V1, V2 and V3, respectively. The non-response rate for the NSA items varied from 5% to 30%, while for SA women, the non-response rate for the items varied from 0% to 15%. The tool was deemed reliable for five domains of the summary score. We also identified that several sections demonstrated acceptable to good temporal stability. A statistically significant score change was identified in different domains in the participants categorized as improved on either PGI-I or POP-Q. We also identified moderate to strong correlations between PISQ-IR and FSFI. CONCLUSIONS: The French translated PISQ-IR has several strengths in support of its validity. Our findings confirm the validity of the summary scores in addition to the item-based initial scoring system.
Authors: Todd H Rockwood; Melissa L Constantine; Olusola Adegoke; Rebecca G Rogers; Elektra McDermott; G Willy Davila; Claudine Domoney; Swati Jha; Dorothy Kammerer-Doak; Emily S Lukacz; Mitesh Parekh; Rachel Pauls; Joan Pitkin; Fiona Reid; Beri Ridgeway; Ranee Thakar; Peter K Sand; Suzette E Sutherland; Montserrat Espuna-Pons Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2013-04-30 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Ilana B Addis; Stephen K Van Den Eeden; Christina L Wassel-Fyr; Eric Vittinghoff; Jeanette S Brown; David H Thom Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2006-04 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Victoria L Handa; Lynn Harvey; Geoffrey W Cundiff; Sohail A Siddique; Kristen H Kjerulff Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2004-09 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Renaud de Tayrac; Michel Cosson; Laure Panel; Clara Compan; Mohammed Zakarya Zemmache; Sophie Bouvet; Laurent Wagner; Brigitte Fatton; Géry Lamblin Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2022-01-19 Impact factor: 1.932