The minimal important difference of the Australian Pelvic Floor Questionnaire
- 85 Downloads
Introduction and hypothesis
The aim of this study was to establish the minimal important difference (MID) of the Australian Pelvic Floor Questionnaire (APFQ) in women undergoing surgery for stress urinary incontinence or symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse. A further aim was to estimate dysfunction scores dependent on the bothersomeness in a community cohort.
The APFQ was completed before and 6 weeks after pelvic floor surgery by 183 women (n = 80 suburethral tape insertion; n = 103 laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy). Distribution and anchor-based methods were used to establish the effect size, standardised response mean and MID (calculated as the difference between women who stated no change or a little better in the Patient Global Impression of Improvement [PGI-I]).
In a community cohort of 470 women aged 42–80 years, the APFQ was analysed according to disclosed bothersomeness.
For the suburethral tape group, the effect size in the bladder domain was 1.5 and the PGI-I-based MID 1.3. For the POP surgery, group the effect size in the prolapse domain was calculated at 2.2 and the PGI-I-based MID at 1.0. The domain scores for women who declared no bother were significantly different from those who were a little bothered (bladder domain 2.2 vs 4.0, bowel 0.6 vs 1.7, POP 0.1 vs 3.2, sex 1.8 vs 3.0) with wide variations.
The MID of the APFQ ranged from 1.0 to 1.3 in the domains after POP or continence surgery respectively. This is corroborated by the differences in domain scores from community-based women who were bothered versus not bothered by pelvic floor symptoms.
KeywordsMinimal important difference Pelvic floor questionnaire Pelvic floor dysfunction Pelvic floor surgery
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflicts of interest
- 4.Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, et al. The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study. Qual Life Res. 2010;19(4):539–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-010-9606-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.Barber MD, Spino C, Janz NK, Brubaker L, Nygaard I, Nager CW, et al. The minimum important differences for the urinary scales of the pelvic floor distress inventory and pelvic floor impact questionnaire. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;200(5):580.e581–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2009.02.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.Sirls LT, Tennstedt S, Brubaker L, Kim HY, Nygaard I, Rahn DD, et al. The minimum important difference for the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Urinary Incontinence Short Form in women with stress urinary incontinence. Neurourol Urodyn. 2015;34(2):183–7. https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.22533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.Baessler K, Junginger B. Validation of a pelvic floor questionnaire with improvement and satisfaction scales to assess symptom severity, bothersomeness and quality of life before and after pelvic floor therapy. Aktuelle Urol. 2011;42(5):316–22. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0031-1271544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 16.Farthmann J, Watermann D, Niesel A, Funfgeld C, Kraus A, Lenz F, et al. Lower exposure rates of partially absorbable mesh compared to nonabsorbable mesh for cystocele treatment: 3-year follow-up of a prospective randomized trial. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24(5):749–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-012-1929-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 19.Schoenfeld M, Fuermetz A, Muenster M, Ennemoser S, von Bodungen V, Friese K, et al. Sexuality in German urogynecological patients and healthy controls: is there a difference with respect to the diagnosis? Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2013;170(2):567–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2013.08.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 21.Katz JN, Harris TM, Larson MG, Krushell RJ, Brown CH, Fossel AH, et al. Predictors of functional outcomes after arthroscopic partial meniscectomy. J Rheumatol. 1992;19(12):1938–42.Google Scholar
- 23.Wiegersma M, Panman CM, Berger MY, De Vet HC, 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.e391–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2016.10.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 26.Barber MD, Walters MD, Cundiff GW, Group PT. Responsiveness of the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI) and Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire (PFIQ) in women undergoing vaginal surgery and pessary treatment for pelvic organ prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;194(5):1492–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2006.01.076.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 27.Ousmen A, Conroy T, Guillemin F, Velten M, Jolly D, Mercier M, et al. Impact of the occurrence of a response shift on the determination of the minimal important difference in a health-related quality of life score over time. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2016;14(1):167. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-016-0569-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar