Quantification of vaginal support: Are continuous summary scores better than POPQ stage?

Linda Brubaker; Matthew D. Barber; Ingrid Nygaard; Charlie W. Nager; Edward Varner; Joseph Schaffer; Anthony Visco; Susan Meikle; Cathie Spino

doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2010.06.071

Quantification of vaginal support: Are continuous summary scores better than POPQ stage?

Linda Brubaker, Matthew D. Barber, Ingrid Nygaard, Charlie W. Nager, Edward Varner, Joseph Schaffer, Anthony Visco, Susan Meikle, Cathie Spino

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

11 Scopus citations

Abstract

Objective This analysis compared 3 continuous variables as summary support loss (SL) scores with pelvic organ prolapse (POP) quantification (POPQ) ordinal stages. Study Design We used pooled baseline data from 1141 subjects in 3 randomized trials (CARE, n = 322; OPUS, n = 380; ATLAS, n = 439) to test 3 SL measures. The relative responsiveness was assessed using the standardized response mean of 2-year outcome data from the CARE trial. Results Each SL measure was strongly correlated with POPQ ordinal staging; the single most distal POPQ point had the strongest correlation. Improvements in anatomic support were weakly correlated with improvements in POP Distress Inventory (r = 0.170.24; P < .01 for each) but not with changes in POP Impact Questionnaire for all measures of SL or POPQ stage. Conclusion While continuous, single number summary measures compared favorably to ordinal POPQ staging system, the single most distal POPQ point may be preferable to POPQ ordinal stages to summarize or compare group data.

Original language	English (US)
Pages (from-to)	512.e1-512.e6
Journal	American journal of obstetrics and gynecology
Volume	203
Issue number	5
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2010.06.071
State	Published - Nov 2010

Keywords

outcome measures
pelvic organ prolapse
pelvic surgery
prolapse
quantification of prolapse

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Obstetrics and Gynecology

Access to Document

10.1016/j.ajog.2010.06.071

Cite this

@article{783b667ca1e840eb99364402f1d8dc0a,

title = "Quantification of vaginal support: Are continuous summary scores better than POPQ stage?",

abstract = "Objective This analysis compared 3 continuous variables as summary support loss (SL) scores with pelvic organ prolapse (POP) quantification (POPQ) ordinal stages. Study Design We used pooled baseline data from 1141 subjects in 3 randomized trials (CARE, n = 322; OPUS, n = 380; ATLAS, n = 439) to test 3 SL measures. The relative responsiveness was assessed using the standardized response mean of 2-year outcome data from the CARE trial. Results Each SL measure was strongly correlated with POPQ ordinal staging; the single most distal POPQ point had the strongest correlation. Improvements in anatomic support were weakly correlated with improvements in POP Distress Inventory (r = 0.170.24; P < .01 for each) but not with changes in POP Impact Questionnaire for all measures of SL or POPQ stage. Conclusion While continuous, single number summary measures compared favorably to ordinal POPQ staging system, the single most distal POPQ point may be preferable to POPQ ordinal stages to summarize or compare group data.",

keywords = "outcome measures, pelvic organ prolapse, pelvic surgery, prolapse, quantification of prolapse",

author = "Linda Brubaker and Barber, {Matthew D.} and Ingrid Nygaard and Nager, {Charlie W.} and Edward Varner and Joseph Schaffer and Anthony Visco and Susan Meikle and Cathie Spino",

note = "Funding Information: Supported by grants from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development , National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases , and the National Institutes of Health Office of Research on Women's Health ( U01 HD41249 , U10 HD41250 , U10 HD41261 , U10 HD41267 , U10 HD54136 , U10 HD54214 , U10 HD54215 , and U10 HD54241 ). ",

year = "2010",

month = nov,

doi = "10.1016/j.ajog.2010.06.071",

language = "English (US)",

volume = "203",

pages = "512.e1--512.e6",

journal = "American journal of obstetrics and gynecology",

issn = "0002-9378",

publisher = "Mosby Inc.",

number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Quantification of vaginal support

T2 - Are continuous summary scores better than POPQ stage?

AU - Brubaker, Linda

AU - Barber, Matthew D.

AU - Nygaard, Ingrid

AU - Nager, Charlie W.

AU - Varner, Edward

AU - Schaffer, Joseph

AU - Visco, Anthony

AU - Meikle, Susan

AU - Spino, Cathie

N1 - Funding Information: Supported by grants from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development , National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases , and the National Institutes of Health Office of Research on Women's Health ( U01 HD41249 , U10 HD41250 , U10 HD41261 , U10 HD41267 , U10 HD54136 , U10 HD54214 , U10 HD54215 , and U10 HD54241 ).

PY - 2010/11

Y1 - 2010/11

N2 - Objective This analysis compared 3 continuous variables as summary support loss (SL) scores with pelvic organ prolapse (POP) quantification (POPQ) ordinal stages. Study Design We used pooled baseline data from 1141 subjects in 3 randomized trials (CARE, n = 322; OPUS, n = 380; ATLAS, n = 439) to test 3 SL measures. The relative responsiveness was assessed using the standardized response mean of 2-year outcome data from the CARE trial. Results Each SL measure was strongly correlated with POPQ ordinal staging; the single most distal POPQ point had the strongest correlation. Improvements in anatomic support were weakly correlated with improvements in POP Distress Inventory (r = 0.170.24; P < .01 for each) but not with changes in POP Impact Questionnaire for all measures of SL or POPQ stage. Conclusion While continuous, single number summary measures compared favorably to ordinal POPQ staging system, the single most distal POPQ point may be preferable to POPQ ordinal stages to summarize or compare group data.

AB - Objective This analysis compared 3 continuous variables as summary support loss (SL) scores with pelvic organ prolapse (POP) quantification (POPQ) ordinal stages. Study Design We used pooled baseline data from 1141 subjects in 3 randomized trials (CARE, n = 322; OPUS, n = 380; ATLAS, n = 439) to test 3 SL measures. The relative responsiveness was assessed using the standardized response mean of 2-year outcome data from the CARE trial. Results Each SL measure was strongly correlated with POPQ ordinal staging; the single most distal POPQ point had the strongest correlation. Improvements in anatomic support were weakly correlated with improvements in POP Distress Inventory (r = 0.170.24; P < .01 for each) but not with changes in POP Impact Questionnaire for all measures of SL or POPQ stage. Conclusion While continuous, single number summary measures compared favorably to ordinal POPQ staging system, the single most distal POPQ point may be preferable to POPQ ordinal stages to summarize or compare group data.

KW - outcome measures

KW - pelvic organ prolapse

KW - pelvic surgery

KW - prolapse

KW - quantification of prolapse

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=78149279785&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=78149279785&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.ajog.2010.06.071

DO - 10.1016/j.ajog.2010.06.071

M3 - Article

C2 - 20728072

AN - SCOPUS:78149279785

SN - 0002-9378

VL - 203

SP - 512.e1-512.e6

JO - American journal of obstetrics and gynecology

JF - American journal of obstetrics and gynecology

IS - 5

ER -

Quantification of vaginal support: Are continuous summary scores better than POPQ stage?

Abstract

Keywords

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this