ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2019
External validation of de novo stress urinary incontinence prediction model after vaginal prolapse surgery.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- The evaluation of the tests that can predict de novo stress urinary incontinence after advanced pelvic organ prolapse surgery: a prospective study.BMC women's health · 2026Article
- Association Between the Cholesterol-High-Density Lipoprotein-Glucose Index and Urinary Incontinence: A Prospective Nationally Representative Cohort Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Predicting De Novo Stress Urinary Incontinence After Colpocleisis Using Clinical and Pelvic Floor Ultrasound Parameters: Development and Internal Validation of a Multimodal Model.International urogynecology journal · 2026Article
- De-Novo Stress Urinary Incontinence After Apical Prolapse Surgery: Potential Link with the Zone of Critical Elasticity.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- External validation of the de novo stress urinary incontinence prediction model after pelvic organ prolapse surgery in Korean women: a retrospective cohort study.BMC women's health · 2023Article
- International Urogynecology consultation chapter 2 committee 3: the clinical evaluation of pelvic organ prolapse including investigations into associated morbidity/pelvic floor dysfunction.International urogynecology journal · 2023Review
- Artificial intelligence (AI) in urology-Current use and future directions: An iTRUE study.Turkish journal of urology · 2020Review
- Determining the risk factors and characteristics of de novo stress urinary incontinence in women undergoing pelvic organ prolapse surgery: A systematic review.Turkish journal of urology · 2020Review
- Complications and reoperation after pelvic organ prolapse, impact of hysterectomy, surgical approach and surgeon experience.International urogynecology journal · 2020Article
- Innovative use of artificial intelligence in urogynecology.International urogynecology journal · 2020Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
30443760What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.