Zhuoran Chen1, Susana Mustafa Mikhail2, Melissa Buttini3, Alex Mowat4, Gunter Hartel5, Christopher Maher2,6. 1. Royal Brisbane Women's Hospital, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Women's and Newborn Services, NHB Level 5, Butterfield Street, Herston, Brisbane, QLD, 4029, Australia. zhuoran.chen@unsw.edu.au. 2. Royal Brisbane Women's Hospital, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Women's and Newborn Services, NHB Level 5, Butterfield Street, Herston, Brisbane, QLD, 4029, Australia. 3. The Wesley Hospital, Auchenflower, Brisbane, QLD, Australia. 4. University of Queensland, Queen Elizabeth II Hospital, Greenslopes, Brisbane, QLD, Australia. 5. QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Statistics Unit, Herston, QLD, Australia. 6. University of Queensland Brisbane QLD, Herston, QLD, Australia.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The aim was to develop and validate (internally and externally) a prediction model for the presence and diagnosis of pelvic floor dysfunction (PFD) in women, including pelvic organ prolapse, stress urinary incontinence and/or overactive bladder via a patient-completed online tool. METHODS: Using a retrospective cohort of women aged >18 years, from multiple tertiary gynaecology units within Queensland, Australia (2014-2018), the prediction model was developed via penalized logistic regression with internal and external validation utilizing multiple clinical predictors (42 questions from the Australian Pelvic Floor Questionnaire and demographics: age, body mass index, parity and mode of delivery). The main outcome measures were the accuracy of the model in predicting a diagnosis of pelvic floor dysfunction and its specific conditions of prolapse and incontinence. RESULTS: A total of 3,501 women were utilized for model development and internal validation and 449 for external validation. On internal validation the model correctly identified those with PFD with 97% sensitivity, 74% specificity and a concordance index (C-index) of 0.96. Predictions of pelvic organ prolapse were also accurate, with 86% sensitivity, 83% specificity, C-index 0.83, as was stress urinary incontinence, 84% sensitivity, 87% specificity, C-index 0.87, and overactive bladder, 76% sensitivity, 77% specificity, C-index 0.77. External validation confirmed the model's accuracy with a similar C-index in all parameters. CONCLUSIONS: This model provides an accurate online tool to differentiate between those with and without PFD and diagnoses of common pelvic floor disorders. It serves as a valuable self-assessment for women and primary care providers.
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The aim was to develop and validate (internally and externally) a prediction model for the presence and diagnosis of pelvic floor dysfunction (PFD) in women, including pelvic organ prolapse, stress urinary incontinence and/or overactive bladder via a patient-completed online tool. METHODS: Using a retrospective cohort of women aged >18 years, from multiple tertiary gynaecology units within Queensland, Australia (2014-2018), the prediction model was developed via penalized logistic regression with internal and external validation utilizing multiple clinical predictors (42 questions from the Australian Pelvic Floor Questionnaire and demographics: age, body mass index, parity and mode of delivery). The main outcome measures were the accuracy of the model in predicting a diagnosis of pelvic floor dysfunction and its specific conditions of prolapse and incontinence. RESULTS: A total of 3,501 women were utilized for model development and internal validation and 449 for external validation. On internal validation the model correctly identified those with PFD with 97% sensitivity, 74% specificity and a concordance index (C-index) of 0.96. Predictions of pelvic organ prolapse were also accurate, with 86% sensitivity, 83% specificity, C-index 0.83, as was stress urinary incontinence, 84% sensitivity, 87% specificity, C-index 0.87, and overactive bladder, 76% sensitivity, 77% specificity, C-index 0.77. External validation confirmed the model's accuracy with a similar C-index in all parameters. CONCLUSIONS: This model provides an accurate online tool to differentiate between those with and without PFD and diagnoses of common pelvic floor disorders. It serves as a valuable self-assessment for women and primary care providers.
Authors: Louise Schreiber Pedersen; Gunnar Lose; Mette Terp Høybye; Martina Jürgensen; Annika Waldmann; Martin Rudnicki Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2017-08-05 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Peggy A Norton; Charles W Nager; Linda Brubaker; Gary E Lemack; Larry T Sirls; Robert Holley; Toby C Chai; Stephen R Kraus; Halina Zyczynski; Bridget Smith; Anne Stoddard Journal: Neurourol Urodyn Date: 2014-10-18 Impact factor: 2.696
Authors: Susanne Elsner; Martina Juergensen; Elke Faust; Achim Niesel; Louise Schreiber Pedersen; Peter Martin Rudnicki; Annika Waldmann Journal: Fam Pract Date: 2020-07-23 Impact factor: 2.267