Top

International Urogynecology Journal

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2021 | Original Article

Minimal important difference and patient acceptable symptom state for PFDI-20 and POPDI-6 in POP surgery

Authors: Päivi K. Karjalainen, Nina K. Mattsson, Jyrki T. Jalkanen, Kari Nieminen, Anna-Maija Tolppanen

Published in: International Urogynecology Journal | Issue 12/2021

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

Patient-reported outcome measures are fundamental tools when assessing effectiveness of treatments. The challenge lies in the interpretation: which magnitude of change in score is meaningful for the patients? The minimal important difference (MID) is defined as the smallest difference in score that patients perceive as important. The Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) represents the value of score beyond which patients consider themselves well. We aimed to determine the MID and PASS for Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-20 (PFDI-20) and Pelvic Organ Prolapse Distress Inventory-6 (POPDI-6) in pelvic organ prolapse (POP) surgery.

Methods

We used data from 2704 POP surgeries from a prospective, population-based cohort. MID was determined with three anchor-based and one distribution-based method. PASS was defined using two different methods. Medians of the estimates were identified.

Results

The MID estimates with (1) mean change, (2) receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve, (3) 75th percentile, and (4) distribution-based method varied between 22.9–25.0 (median 24.2) points for PFDI-20 and 9.0–12.5 (median 11.3) for POPDI-6. The PASS cutoffs with (1) 75th percentile and (2) ROC curve method varied between 57.7–62.5 (median 60.0) for PFDI-20 and 16.7–17.7 (median 17.2) for POPDI-6.

Conclusion

A mean difference of 24 points in the PFDI-20 or 11 points in the POPDI-6 can be used as a clinically relevant difference between groups. Postoperative scores ≤ 60 for PFDI-20 and ≤ 17 for POPDI-6 signify acceptable symptom state.

Available only for authorised users

Barber MD, Brubaker LP, Nygaard I, Wheeler TL 2nd, Schaffer JI, Chen Z, et al. Defining success after surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;114(3):600–9.CrossRef

Srikrishna S, Cardozo L. Quality of Life and Patient Reported Outcomes. Glob Libr women’s Med. 2014;(ISSN: 1756–2228).

Schünemann HJ, Puhan M, Goldstein R, Jaeschke R, Guyatt GH. Measurement properties and interpretability of the chronic respiratory disease questionnaire (CRQ). COPD J Chronic Obstr Pulm Dis. 2005;2(1):81–9.CrossRef

Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials. 1989;10(4):407–15.CrossRef

Johnston BC, Ebrahim S, Carrasco-Labra A, Furukawa TA, Patrick DL, Crawford MW, et al. Minimally important difference estimates and methods: a protocol. BMJ Open. 2015;5:e007953.CrossRef

Revicki D, Hays RD, Cella D, Sloan J. Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61(2):102–9.CrossRef

Tubach F, Ravaud P, Baron G, Falissard B, Logeart I, Bellamy N, et al. Evaluation of clinically relevant states in patient reported outcomes in knee and hip osteoarthritis: the patient acceptable symptom state. Ann Rheum Dis. 2005;64(1):34–7.CrossRef

Barber MD, Walters MD, Bump RC. Short forms of two condition-specific quality-of-life questionnaires for women with pelvic floor disorders (PFDI-20 and PFIQ-7). Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;193:103–13.CrossRef

Barber MD, Chen Z, Lukacz E, Markland A, Wai C, Brubaker L, et al. Further validation of the short form versions of the pelvic floor distress inventory (PFDI) and pelvic floor impact questionnaire (PFIQ). Neurourol Urodyn. 2011;30:541–6.CrossRef

10.

Gelhorn HL, Coyne KS, Sikirica V, Gauld J, Murphy M. Psychometric evaluation of health-related quality-of-life measures after pelvic organ prolapse surgery. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2012;18(4):221–6.CrossRef

11.

Wiegersma M, Panman CMCR, Berger MY, De Vet HCW, Kollen BJ, Dekker JH. Minimal important change in the pelvic floor distress inventory-20 among women opting for conservative prolapse treatment. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;216(4):397.e1–7.CrossRef

12.

Utomo E, Blok BF, Steensma AB, Korfage IJ. Validation of the pelvic floor distress inventory (PFDI-20) and pelvic floor impact questionnaire (PFIQ-7) in a Dutch population. Int Urogynecol J. 2014;25(4):531–44.CrossRef

13.

Tubach F, Ravaud P, Beaton D, Boers M, Bombardier C, Felson DT, et al. Minimal clinically important improvement and patient acceptable symptom state for subjective outcome measures in rheumatic disorders. J Rheumatol. 2007;34(5):1188–93.PubMedPubMedCentral

14.

Mattsson NK, Karjalainen P, Tolppanen A-M, Heikkinen A-M, Jalkanen J, Härkki P, et al. Methods of surgery for pelvic organ prolapse in a nationwide cohort (FINPOP 2015). Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2019;98(4):451–9.CrossRef

15.

Mattsson NK, Nieminen K, Heikkinen A-M, Jalkanen J, Koivurova S, Eloranta M-L, et al. Validation of the short forms of the pelvic floor distress inventory (PFDI-20), pelvic floor impact questionnaire (PFIQ-7), and pelvic organ prolapse/urinary incontinence sexual questionnaire (PISQ-12) in Finnish. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2017;15:88.CrossRef

16.

Srikrishna S, Robinson D, Cardozo L. Validation of the patient global impression of improvement (PGI-I) for urogenital prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2010;21(5):523–8.CrossRef

17.

Redelmeier DA, Lorig K. Assessing the clinical importance of symptomatic improvements. Arch Intern Med. 1993;153:1337–42.CrossRef

18.

Terwee CB, Roorda LD, Knol DL, De Boer MR, De Vet HCW. Linking measurement error to minimal important change of patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(10):1062–7.CrossRef

19.

Turner D, Schünemann HJ, Griffith LE, Beaton DE, Griffiths AM, Critch JN, et al. Using the entire cohort in the receiver operating characteristic analysis maximizes precision of the minimal important difference. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(4):374–9.CrossRef

20.

Tubach F, Ravaud P, Baron G, Falissard B, Logeart I, Bellamy N, et al. Evaluation of clinically relevant changes in patient reported outcomes in knee and hip osteoarthritis: the minimal clinically important improvement. Ann Rheum Dis. 2005;64(1):29–33.CrossRef

21.

Tubach F, Ravaud P, Martin-Mola E, Awada H, Bellamy N, Bombardier C, et al. Minimum clinically important improvement and patient acceptable symptom state in pain and function in rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, chronic Back pain, hand osteoarthritis, and hip and knee osteoarthritis: results from a prospective Multina. Arthritis Care Res. 2012;64(11):1699–707.CrossRef

22.

Norman GR, Sloan JA, Wyrwich KW. Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life: the remarkable universality of half a standard deviation. Med Care. 2003;41(5):582–92.PubMed

23.

van Kampen DA, Willems WJ, van Beers LWAH, Castelein RM, Scholtes VAB, Terwee CB. Determination and comparison of the smallest detectable change (SDC) and the minimal important change (MIC) of four-shoulder patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). J Orthop Surg Res. 2013;8:40.CrossRef

24.

Maksymowych WP, Richardson R, Mallon C, Van Der Heijde D, Boonen A. Evaluation and validation of the patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) in patients with ankylosing spondylitis. Arthritis Care Res. 2007;57(1):133–9.CrossRef

25.

Tubach F, Wells GA, Ravaud P, Dougados M. Minimal clinically important difference, low disease activity state, and patient acceptable symptom state: methodological issues. J Rheumatol. 2005;32(10):2025–9.PubMed

26.

Frahm Olsen M, Bjerre E, Hansen MD, Tendal B, Hilden J, Hróbjartsson A. Minimum clinically important differences in chronic pain vary considerably by baseline pain and methodological factors: systematic review of empirical studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;101:87–106.e2.CrossRef

27.

Devji T, Carrasco-labra A, Qasim A, Phillips M, Johnston BC, Devasenapathy N, et al. Evaluating the credibility of anchor based estimates of minimal important differences for patient reported outcomes : instrument development and reliability study. BMJ. 2020;369(m1714):1–11.

28.

Guyatt GH, Norman GR, Juniper EF, Griffith LE. A critical look at transition ratings. J Clin Epidemiol. 2002;55(9):900–8.CrossRef

29.

Larsen MD, Lose G, Guldberg R, Gradel KO. Discrepancies between patient-reported outcome measures when assessing urinary incontinence or pelvic-prolapse surgery. Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27(4):537–43.CrossRef

Title: Minimal important difference and patient acceptable symptom state for PFDI-20 and POPDI-6 in POP surgery
Authors: Päivi K. Karjalainen
Nina K. Mattsson
Jyrki T. Jalkanen
Kari Nieminen
Anna-Maija Tolppanen
Publication date: 01-12-2021
Publisher: Springer International Publishing
Published in: International Urogynecology Journal / Issue 12/2021
Print ISSN: 0937-3462
Electronic ISSN: 1433-3023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-020-04513-z

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Minimal important difference and patient acceptable symptom state for PFDI-20 and POPDI-6 in POP surgery

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 12/2021

Translation and linguistic validation of the Female Genitourinary Pain Index in Spanish

Outcomes collected in female pelvic floor surgical procedure registries and databases: a scoping review

Polish versions of the ICIQ-FLUTS and the ICIQ-FLUTS LF: translation, adaptation, and validation of female-specific instruments for evaluation of lower urinary tract symptoms

Joint terminology documents: are there too many or is this the way forward?

Laparoscopic excision and re-attachment of sacrocolpopexy mesh

French validation of the Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire-IUGA revised (PISQ-IR)