Top

International Urogynecology Journal

Published in:

01-04-2016 | Original Article

Discrepancies between patient-reported outcome measures when assessing urinary incontinence or pelvic- prolapse surgery

Authors: Michael Due Larsen, Gunnar Lose, Rikke Guldberg, Kim Oren Gradel

Published in: International Urogynecology Journal | Issue 4/2016

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.

Abrams P, Avery K, Gardener N, Donovan J, Board IA (2006) The international consultation on incontinence modular questionnaire: www.iciq.net. J Urol 175:1063–1066CrossRefPubMed

Freeman RM (2010) Do we really know the outcomes of prolapse surgery? Maturitas 65(1):11–14CrossRefPubMed

Srikrishna S, Robinson D, Cardozo L (2009) Qualifying a quantitative approach to women’s expectations of continence surgery. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 20(7):859–865CrossRefPubMed

Marshall S, Haywood K, Fitzpatrick R (2006) Impact of patient-reported outcome measures on routine practice: a structured review. J Eval Clin Pract 12(5):559–568CrossRefPubMed

Greenhalgh J (2009) The applications of PROs in clinical practice: what are they, do they work, and why? Qual Life Res 18(1):115–123CrossRefPubMed

Jackowski D, Guyatt G (2003) A guide to health measurement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 413:80–89CrossRefPubMed

Poolman RW, Swiontkowski MF, Fairbank JC, Schemitsch EH, Sprague S, de Vet HC (2009) Outcome instruments: rationale for their use. J Bone Joint Surg Am 91 [Suppl 3]:41–49CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Srikrishna S, Robinson D, Cardozo L, Gonzalez J (2008) Is there a difference in patient and physician quality of life evaluation in pelvic organ prolapse? Int Urogynecol Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 19(4):517–520CrossRef

Cartwright R, Srikrishna S, Cardozo L, Robinson D (2011) Validity and reliability of patient selected goals as an outcome measure in overactive bladder. Int Urogynecol J 22(7):841–847CrossRefPubMed

10.

Srikrishna S, Robinson D, Cardozo L (2010) Validation of the patient global impression of improvement (PGI-I) for urogenital prolapse. Int Urogynecol J 21(5):523–528CrossRefPubMed

11.

Reid FM, Smith AR, Dunn G (2007) Which questionnaire? A psychometric evaluation of three patient-based outcome measures used to assess surgery for stress urinary incontinence. Neurourol Urodyn 26(1):123–128CrossRefPubMed

12.

Price N, Jackson SR, Avery K, Brookes ST, Abrams P (2006) Development and psychometric evaluation of the ICIQ vaginal symptoms questionnaire: the ICIQ-VS. BJOG 113(6):700–712CrossRefPubMed

13.

Yalcin I, Bump RC (2003) Validation of two global impression questionnaires for incontinence. Am J Obstet Gynecol 189(1):98–101CrossRefPubMed

14.

Viktrup L, Hayes RP, Wang P, Shen W (2012) Construct validation of patient global impression of severity (PGI-S) and improvement (PGI-I) questionnaires in the treatment of men with lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia. BMC Urol 12:30CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

15.

Danish Urogynaecological Database, Available via http://www.dugabase.dk/. Accessed 1 August 2014

16.

Guldberg R, Brostrom S, Hansen JK, Kaerlev L, Gradel KO, Norgard BM et al (2013) The Danish urogynaecological database: establishment, completeness and validity. Int Urogynecol J 24(6):983–990CrossRefPubMed

17.

Haylen BT, de Ridder D, Freeman RM, Swift SE, Berghmans B, Lee J et al (2010) An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for female pelvic floor dysfunction. Int Urogynecol J 21(1):5–26CrossRefPubMed

18.

Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, van der Windt DA, Knol DL, Dekker J et al (2007) Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol 60(1):34–42CrossRefPubMed

19.

Altman DG (1999) Practical statistics for medical research. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, xii, 611 s. p

20.

Bland JM, Altman DG (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1(8476):307–310CrossRefPubMed

21.

Jonsson Funk M, Siddiqui NY, Kawasaki A, Wu JM (2012) Long-term outcomes after stress urinary incontinence surgery. J Gynecol Oncol 120(1):83–90

22.

Abdel-Fattah M, Familusi A, Fielding S, Ford J, Bhattacharya S (2011) Primary and repeat surgical treatment for female pelvic organ prolapse and incontinence in parous women in the UK: a register linkage study. BMJ Open 1(2):e000206CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

23.

Altman D, Vayrynen T, Engh ME, Axelsen S, Falconer C (2011) Anterior colporrhaphy versus transvaginal mesh for pelvic-organ prolapse. N Engl J Med 364(19):1826–1836CrossRefPubMed

24.

Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Schmid C (2013) Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. (3):CD004014

25.

Bland JM, Altman DG (2003) Applying the right statistics: analyses of measurement studies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 22(1):85–93CrossRefPubMed

26.

Kingsley G, Scott IC, Scott DL (2011) Quality of life and the outcome of established rheumatoid arthritis. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 25(4):585–606CrossRefPubMed

27.

Oh SJ, Ku JH, Hong SK, Kim SW, Paick JS, Son H (2005) Factors influencing self-perceived disease severity in women with stress urinary incontinence combined with or without urge incontinence. Neurourol Urodyn 24(4):341–347CrossRefPubMed

28.

Aaronson N, Alonso J, Burnam A, Lohr KN, Patrick DL, Perrin E et al (2002) Assessing health status and quality-of-life instruments: attributes and review criteria. Qual Life Res 11(3):193–205CrossRefPubMed

29.

30.

Ulrich D, Guzman Rojas R, Dietz HP, Mann K, Trutnovsky G (2014) Use of a visual analog scale for evaluation of bother from pelvic organ prolapse. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 43(6):693–697CrossRefPubMed

31.

Tincello DG, Owen RK, Slack MC, Abrams KR (2013) Validation of the patient global impression scales for use in detrusor overactivity: secondary analysis of the RELAX study. BJOG 120(2):212–216CrossRefPubMed

Title: Discrepancies between patient-reported outcome measures when assessing urinary incontinence or pelvic- prolapse surgery
Authors: Michael Due Larsen
Gunnar Lose
Rikke Guldberg
Kim Oren Gradel
Publication date: 01-04-2016
Publisher: Springer London
Published in: International Urogynecology Journal / Issue 4/2016
Print ISSN: 0937-3462
Electronic ISSN: 1433-3023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-015-2840-4

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Discrepancies between patient-reported outcome measures when assessing urinary incontinence or pelvic- prolapse surgery

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 4/2016

Introducing a true minimally invasive meshless and dissectionless anchoring system for pelvic organ prolapse repair

The “learning curve” for retropubic mid-urethral sling procedures: a retrospective cohort study

Erratum to: An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA) / International Continence Society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for female pelvic organ prolapse (POP)

Managing novel orally administered anticoagulants in patients undergoing urogynaecological surgery

Prolapse or incontinence: what affects sexual function the most?

Response to the letter to the editor by Shek et al. on Vergeldt et al: Risk factors for pelvic organ prolapse and its recurrence: a systematic review