Suppr超能文献

视觉模拟评分法在评估盆腔器官脱垂症状困扰方面不如盆腔器官脱垂困扰问卷吗?

Is the Visual Analogue Scale inferior to the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Distress Inventory for assessing symptom bother of pelvic organ prolapse?

机构信息

Department of Ultrasound, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Henan, China.

Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Liverpool Clinical School, Western Sydney University, Sydney, NSW, Australia.

出版信息

Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2021 Dec;61(6):918-921. doi: 10.1111/ajo.13412. Epub 2021 Jul 27.

Abstract

AIMS

Disease-specific validated questionnaires are used to quantify symptom severity, but they are time consuming to complete and evaluate. A Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) assessment of bother is simpler and faster. The aim of this study is to compare VAS with individual and composite pelvic floor disability index-short form 20 items in predicting significant pelvic organ prolapse (POP).

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of data was obtained at a tertiary urogynaecological clinic between February 2017 and August 2018. All women filled out the PFDI-20 and underwent a standardised physician-directed interview, POP-Q and translabial ultrasound. Women with symptoms of POP were asked to indicate the degree of bother using a VAS. Receiver operating characteristic curves were used to evaluate the performance of individual Pelvic Organ Prolapse Distress Inventory (POPDI)-6 items, the six-item composite POPDI-6 score, and VAS in predicting significant POP on clinical and ultrasound examination.

RESULTS

The complete data sets of 231 women were analysed. Median VAS for POP was 2.9 (range 0-10). Median POPDI-6 individual and composite scores for items one to six were 2, 2, 2, 1, 2, 0 (all range 0-4) and 9 (range 0-22), respectively. The majority had significant prolapse on clinical examination (n = 195, 84%) and on ultrasound (n = 192, 83%). The composite POPDI-6 prolapse score provided areas under the curve of 0.68 and 0.64 for the prediction of clinical and sonographic POP, compared to 0.74 and 0.69, respectively, for VAS. The difference was not significant (P = 0.3 and 0.8, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The VAS score was not inferior to the POPDI-6 in predicting significant POP. It has the potential to simplify the assessment of symptom severity.

摘要

目的

疾病特异性验证问卷用于量化症状严重程度,但完成和评估这些问卷既耗时又费力。视觉模拟量表(VAS)评估麻烦程度更简单、更快。本研究旨在比较 VAS 与个体和综合盆底功能障碍指数-20 项简短形式在预测显著盆腔器官脱垂(POP)中的作用。

方法

对 2017 年 2 月至 2018 年 8 月在三级泌尿科妇科诊所进行的数据进行回顾性分析。所有女性均填写 PFDI-20 并接受标准化医师指导的访谈、POP-Q 和经阴道超声检查。有 POP 症状的女性被要求使用 VAS 表示麻烦的程度。接受者操作特征曲线用于评估个体盆腔器官脱垂困扰量表(POPDI)-6 项、6 项复合 POPDI-6 评分和 VAS 在预测临床和超声检查中显著 POP 的性能。

结果

分析了 231 名女性的完整数据集。POP 的中位 VAS 为 2.9(范围 0-10)。POPDI-6 个体和综合评分 1 至 6 的中位数分别为 2、2、2、1、2、0(均范围 0-4)和 9(范围 0-22)。大多数女性在临床检查(n=195,84%)和超声检查(n=192,83%)中均有显著的脱垂。复合 POPDI-6 脱垂评分对临床和超声 POP 的预测,曲线下面积分别为 0.68 和 0.64,而 VAS 分别为 0.74 和 0.69,差异无统计学意义(分别为 P=0.3 和 0.8)。

结论

VAS 评分在预测显著 POP 方面并不劣于 POPDI-6。它有可能简化症状严重程度的评估。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验