Advertisement

Minimal important change in the pelvic floor distress inventory-20 among women opting for conservative prolapse treatment

Published:October 14, 2016DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2016.10.010

      Background

      The Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-20 is used to evaluate symptoms and treatment effects in women with pelvic floor disorders. To interpret changes in the scores of this inventory, information is needed about what patients and clinicians perceive as the minimal important (meaningful) change. Although this change in the inventory score has been investigated previously in women who have undergone pelvic floor surgery, the results could not be generalized to women with milder symptoms (ie, lower scores) who often require only conservative treatment.

      Objective

      We aimed to estimate the minimal important change in the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-20 that was needed to demonstrate clinical improvement in women who qualify for conservative pelvic floor treatment.

      Study Design

      The data of 214 women aged ≥55 years were used. All participants were from 2 randomized controlled trials that compared conservative prolapse treatments in primary care in The Netherlands. The degree of prolapse was assessed with the use of the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification system; participants completed the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-20 at baseline and at 12 months, with a global perception of improvement question at 12 months. To assess both the patient perspective and the clinical perspective, 2 anchors were assessed: (1) the global perception of improvement was considered the anchor for the patients’ perspective, and (2) the difference in the degree of prolapse was considered the anchor for the clinical perspective. Provided that the anchors were correlated by at least 0.3 to the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-20 change scores, we estimated the following minimal important changes: (1) the optimal cutoff-point of the receiver operating characteristics curve that discriminates between women with and without improvement in the global perception of improvement scale and (2) the mean Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-20 change score of participants who improved 1 assessment stage. We then calculated the smallest detectable change to check whether the minimal important change was larger than the measurement error of the questionnaire.

      Results

      Using the global perception of improvement as the anchor, we found a minimal important change for improvement of 13.5 points (95% confidence interval, 6.2–20.9). The Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification change scores correlated poorly to the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-20 change scores and therefore could not be used as an anchor. The smallest detectable change at the group level was 5.5 points. Thus, the minimal important change was larger than the smallest detectable change at the group level.

      Conclusion

      In women with relatively mild pelvic floor symptoms, an improvement of 13.5 points (or a 23% reduction) in the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-20 score can be considered clinically relevant. This minimal important change can be used for clinical trial planning and evaluation of treatment effects in women whose condition is considered suitable for conservative treatment.

      Key words

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Barber M.D.
        • Walters M.D.
        • Bump R.C.
        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: 103-113
        • Kelleher C.
        • Staskin D.
        • Cherian P.
        • et al.
        Patient-reported outcome assessment.
        in: Abrams P. Cardozo L. Khoury S. Wein A. Incontinence. 5th ed. International Consultation on Incontinence, Paris, France2013: 389-427
        • Barber M.D.
        • Chen Z.
        • Lukacz E.
        • 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: 541-546
        • Jaeschke R.
        • Singer J.
        • Guyatt G.H.
        Measurement of health status. ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference.
        Control Clin Trials. 1989; 10: 407-415
        • Beaton D.E.
        • Bombardier C.
        • Katz J.N.
        • Wright J.G.
        A taxonomy for responsiveness.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2001; 54: 1204-1217
        • Crosby R.D.
        • Kolotkin R.L.
        • Williams G.R.
        Defining clinically meaningful change in health-related quality of life.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2003; 56: 395-407
        • Lydick E.
        • Epstein R.S.
        Interpretation of quality of life changes.
        Qual Life Res. 1993; 2: 221-226
        • Revicki D.
        • Hays R.D.
        • Cella D.
        • Sloan J.
        Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2008; 61: 102-109
        • Gelhorn H.L.
        • Coyne K.S.
        • 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: 221-226
        • Utomo E.
        • Blok B.F.
        • Steensma A.B.
        • Korfage I.J.
        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: 531-544
        • Culligan P.J.
        • Scherer J.
        • Dyer K.
        • et al.
        A randomized clinical trial comparing pelvic floor muscle training to a Pilates exercise program for improving pelvic muscle strength.
        Int Urogynecol J. 2010; 21: 401-408
        • Wiegersma M.
        • Panman C.M.
        • Kollen B.J.
        • et al.
        Effect of pelvic floor muscle training compared with watchful waiting in older women with symptomatic mild pelvic organ prolapse: randomised controlled trial in primary care.
        BMJ. 2014; 349: g7378
        • Stratford P.W.
        • Binkley J.M.
        • Riddle D.L.
        • Guyatt G.H.
        Sensitivity to change of the Roland-Morris back pain questionnaire: part 1.
        Phys Ther. 1998; 78: 1186-1196
        • De Vet H.C.
        • Terwee C.B.
        • Ostelo R.W.
        • Beckerman H.
        • Knol D.L.
        • Bouter L.M.
        Minimal changes in health status questionnaires: distinction between minimally detectable change and minimally important change.
        Health Qual Life Outcome. 2006; 4: 54
        • De Vet H.C.
        • Foumani M.
        • Scholten M.A.
        • et al.
        Minimally important change values of a measurement instrument depend more on baseline values than on the type of intervention.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2015; 68: 518-524
        • Wiegersma M.
        • Panman C.M.
        • Kollen B.J.
        • et al.
        Pelvic floor muscle training versus watchful waiting or pessary treatment for pelvic organ prolapse (POPPS): design and participant baseline characteristics of two parallel pragmatic randomized controlled trials in primary care.
        Maturitas. 2014; 77: 168-173
        • Panman C.
        • Wiegersma M.
        • Kollen B.J.
        • et al.
        Two-year effects and cost-effectiveness of pelvic floor muscle training in mild pelvic organ prolapse: a randomised controlled trial in primary care.
        BJOG. 2016; ([Epub ahead of print])
        • Bump R.C.
        • Mattiasson A.
        • Bo K.
        • et al.
        The standardization of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996; 175: 10-17
        • Burgio K.L.
        • Goode P.S.
        • Richter H.E.
        • Locher J.L.
        • Roth D.L.
        Global ratings of patient satisfaction and perceptions of improvement with treatment for urinary incontinence: Validation of three global patient ratings.
        Neurourol Urodyn. 2006; 25: 411-417
        • Deyo R.A.
        • Centor R.M.
        Assessing the responsiveness of functional scales to clinical change: an analogy to diagnostic test performance.
        J Chronic Dis. 1986; 39: 897-906
        • De Vet H.C.
        • Ostelo R.W.
        • Terwee C.B.
        • et al.
        Minimally important change determined by a visual method integrating an anchor-based and a distribution-based approach.
        Qual Life Res. 2007; 16: 131-142
        • Terwee C.B.
        • Roorda L.D.
        • Dekker J.
        • et al.
        Mind the MIC: large variation among populations and methods.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2010; 63: 524-534
        • De Vet H.C.
        • Terwee C.B.
        • Mokkink L.B.
        • Knol D.L.
        Measurement in medicine.
        Cambridge University Press, Cambridge2011
        • De Vet H.C.
        • Terwee C.B.
        • Knol D.L.
        • Bouter L.M.
        When to use agreement versus reliability measures.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2006; 59: 1033-1039
        • De Vet H.C.
        • Terluin B.
        • Knol D.L.
        • et al.
        Three ways to quantify uncertainty in individually applied “minimally important change” values.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2010; 63: 37-45