Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30443760›Full record

ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2019

External validation of de novo stress urinary incontinence prediction model after vaginal prolapse surgery.

Jordi Sabadell, Sabina Salicrú, Anabel Montero-Armengol, Núria Rodriguez-Mias, Antonio Gil-Moreno, Jose L Poza

Abstract readValidation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International urogynecology journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Innovative use of artificial intelligence in urogynecology.International urogynecology journal · 2020
    Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Jordi SabadellUrogynecology and Pelvic Floor Unit, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hospital Universitari Vall d'Hebron, Vall d'Hebron Barcelona Hospital Campus, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Passeig Vall d'Hebron 119-129, E-08035, Barcelona, Spain. jsabadell@vhebron.net.ORCID 0000-0001-9380-0338
Sabina SalicrúUrogynecology and Pelvic Floor Unit, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hospital Universitari Vall d'Hebron, Vall d'Hebron Barcelona Hospital Campus, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Passeig Vall d'Hebron 119-129, E-08035, Barcelona, Spain.
Anabel Montero-ArmengolUrogynecology and Pelvic Floor Unit, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hospital Universitari Vall d'Hebron, Vall d'Hebron Barcelona Hospital Campus, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Passeig Vall d'Hebron 119-129, E-08035, Barcelona, Spain.
Núria Rodriguez-MiasUrogynecology and Pelvic Floor Unit, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hospital Universitari Vall d'Hebron, Vall d'Hebron Barcelona Hospital Campus, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Passeig Vall d'Hebron 119-129, E-08035, Barcelona, Spain.
Antonio Gil-MorenoUrogynecology and Pelvic Floor Unit, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hospital Universitari Vall d'Hebron, Vall d'Hebron Barcelona Hospital Campus, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Passeig Vall d'Hebron 119-129, E-08035, Barcelona, Spain.
Jose L PozaUrogynecology and Pelvic Floor Unit, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hospital Universitari Vall d'Hebron, Vall d'Hebron Barcelona Hospital Campus, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Passeig Vall d'Hebron 119-129, E-08035, Barcelona, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introduction and hypothesisStress urinary incontinence (SUI) may appear after the correction of pelvic organ prolapse (POP). The aim of this study was to externally validate a described predictive model for de novo SUI and to assess its clinical performance when used as a diagnostic test.

methodsThis was a retrospective descriptive study on a cohort of consecutive women treated in our institution. The main outcome used to validate the model was the presence of objective or subjective SUI 1 year after surgery. A receiver operating characteristic curve was generated from our population to evaluate the predictive accuracy and to compare it with the original model. A cutoff point of ≥50% was used to evaluate its clinical performance as a diagnostic test.

resultsOf the full cohort, 169 women were suitable for analysis. The rate of de novo SUI was 11.8%. The predictive accuracy of the model in our population was similar to the original [area under the curve (AUC) = 0.69; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.58-0.80). However, its performance measures when evaluated as a diagnostic test were low: positive likelihood ratio = 2.71 and negative likelihood ratio = 0.86. Only 15 women presented a positive test result.

conclusionsExternal validation of the model found a global predictive accuracy similar to that of the original model. Despite the study being underpowered to give firm conclusions, the test did not show a good clinical performance when applied to our population with low de novo SUI prevalence. A larger sample size is needed to validate the model conclusively.

Indexed as

AgedFemaleGynecologic Surgical ProceduresHumansLogistic ModelsMiddle AgedPelvic Organ ProlapseRetrospective StudiesRisk AssessmentUrinary IncontinenceDe novo incontinenceExternal validationModel performancePelvic organ prolapsePredictive modelStress urinary incontinence

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.