Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) for the Pelvic Organ Prolapse-Urinary Incontinence Sexual Function Questionnaire – IUGA Revised (PISQ-IR)
| Autor: | Bente Pruijssers, Huub van der Vaart, Jan-Paul Roovers, Astrid Vollebregt, Lisa van der Vaart, Fred Milani |
|---|---|
| Přispěvatelé: | Obstetrics and Gynaecology, ARD - Amsterdam Reproduction and Development, APH - Aging & Later Life |
| Rok vydání: | 2021 |
| Předmět: |
Pessary
medicine.medical_specialty Sexual Dysfunction Sexual Behavior Urology Endocrinology Diabetes and Metabolism Minimal Clinically Important Difference 030232 urology & nephrology Urinary incontinence Pelvic Organ Prolapse 03 medical and health sciences 0302 clinical medicine Endocrinology Statistical significance medicine Humans Prospective Studies Prospective cohort study 030219 obstetrics & reproductive medicine Pelvic floor business.industry Minimal clinically important difference humanities Psychiatry and Mental health Urinary Incontinence Sexual dysfunction medicine.anatomical_structure Reproductive Medicine Physical therapy Female medicine.symptom Surveys and questionnaires Sexual function business |
| Zdroj: | journal of sexual medicine, 18(7), 1265-1270. Wiley-Blackwell |
| ISSN: | 1743-6109 1743-6095 |
| DOI: | 10.1016/j.jsxm.2021.04.005 |
| Popis: | Background To put statistically significant changes in patient reported outcome measurement (PROM) questionnaires into a clinical perspective, the concept of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) can be used. Aim To determine the MCID for the summary score for sexually active (SA) women of the Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire, IUGA-Revised (PISQ-IR), a validated instrument which assesses sexual functioning (SF) for patients suffering from a symptomatic pelvic floor disorder. Methods Patients participating in a multicentre prospective cohort study comparing pessary therapy with surgery for a symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse (POP) filled in the PISQ-IR at baseline and 12 months’ follow-up. We used both an anchor-based as well as a distribution-based method to calculate the MCID for both treatment groups. The Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) questionnaire and PISQ-IR question 19a about satisfaction with sexual functioning were used as anchors. For the distribution-based approach we used the effect size (ES). Outcomes MCID for the SA summary score of the PISQ-IR. RESULTS Data of 243 women were used to calculate the MCID. In the pessary group, Kendall’s tau-b correlation coefficients between the PISQ-IR summary score and both anchors were below the cut-off of 0.21, which implies the anchors cannot be used to calculate an MCID. In our surgery group, the PISQ-IR question 19a met the anchor criteria and 0.31 points increase in the PISQ-IR summary score was equal to an improvement of 1 point on question 19a about satisfaction with sexual functioning. Clinical implications Future research on this subject should focus on clinical relevance of results rather than statistical significance only. Strengths & Limitations Our main strength is the fact that we used both anchor-based and distribution-based methods to determine our MCID. Secondly, we set out to determine an MCID for both treatment groups separately, which relatively enhances the generalisability of our results. A limitation is that we were not able to estimate an MCID for the pessary group. CONCLUSION We estimated the MCID for the PISQ-IR SA summary score to be 0.31 in our surgery group. |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|