ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2021
Minimal important difference and patient acceptable symptom state for PFDI-20 and POPDI-6 in POP surgery.
Article in International urogynecology journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Use in Women With Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Systematic Review.Obstetrics and gynecology · 2023Pooled it
- Silicone Irregular Hexagon Pessary Versus Polyvinyl Chloride Ring Pessary for Pelvic Organ Prolapse: Randomised Controlled Trial.International urogynecology journal · 2025Trial
- Responsiveness, Smallest Detectable Change, and Minimal Important Change of the Turkish Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-20 Following Pelvic Floor Muscle Training.Physiotherapy research international : the journal for researchers and clinicians in physical therapy · 2026Article
- How is Subjective Surgical Success Defined Using the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI-20) After Primary Uterovaginal Prolapse Repair? A Systematic Review and Consensus Statements from the U-POP & LUTD 2026 Global Consensus Conference.International urogynecology journal · 2026Review
- Commentary on Bone-Targeted High-Intensity Training and Pelvic Floor Outcomes: Interpretation and Measurement Issues.International urogynecology journal · 2026Article
- Responsiveness, Minimal Detectable Change, and Minimal Clinically Important Difference of the Turkish Version of the 8-item Overactive Bladder Questionnaire.International urogynecology journal · 2026Article
- Norwegian Translation and Validation of the Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire-IUGA Revised (PISQ-IR).International urogynecology journal · 2025Article
- Impact of a Digital Therapeutic Device on Pelvic Floor Symptoms.Urogynecology (Philadelphia, Pa.) · 2025Article
- Investigating the Impact of Benign Indication Hysterectomy on Pelvic Floor Symptoms and Sexual Function: A Prospective Study Integrating Pelvic Floor Ultrasonography and Surface Electromyography Test.Women's health reports (New Rochelle, N.Y.) · 2025Article
- Sexual and Urinary Health among Women following Bariatric Surgery.Obesity surgery · 2024Article
- A Study on Symptoms of Pelvic Floor Dysfunction in Assigned Female at Birth Patients Diagnosed with Gender Dysphoria Undergoing Vaginectomy.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2024Article
- Measuring Pelvic Organ Prolapse: An Evolution.International urogynecology journal · 2024Review
- Quality-of-life improvements in patients after various surgical treatments for pelvic organ prolapse.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2024Review
- International urogynecological consultation chapter 4.1: definition of outcomes for pelvic organ prolapse surgery.International urogynecology journal · 2023Review
- Phenotyping of Urinary Urgency Patients Without Urgency Incontinence, and Their Comparison to Urgency Incontinence Patients: Findings From the LURN Study.The Journal of urology · 2023Article
- Single-center study for robotic-assisted laparoscopic sacropexies: a one-fits-all strategy for pelvic organ prolapse?Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2022Article
- International Urogynecology Consultation: Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROs) use in the evaluation of patients with pelvic organ prolapse.International urogynecology journal · 2022Article
- Effects of hysterectomy on pelvic floor function and sexual function-A prospective cohort study.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2022Article
- How is pain associated with pelvic mesh implants measured? Refinement of the construct and a scoping review of current assessment tools.BMC women's health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisPatient-reported outcome measures are fundamental tools when assessing effectiveness of treatments. The challenge lies in the interpretation: which magnitude of change in score is meaningful for the patients? The minimal important difference (MID) is defined as the smallest difference in score that patients perceive as important. The Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) represents the value of score beyond which patients consider themselves well. We aimed to determine the MID and PASS for Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-20 (PFDI-20) and Pelvic Organ Prolapse Distress Inventory-6 (POPDI-6) in pelvic organ prolapse (POP) surgery.
methodsWe used data from 2704 POP surgeries from a prospective, population-based cohort. MID was determined with three anchor-based and one distribution-based method. PASS was defined using two different methods. Medians of the estimates were identified.
resultsThe MID estimates with (1) mean change, (2) receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve, (3) 75th percentile, and (4) distribution-based method varied between 22.9-25.0 (median 24.2) points for PFDI-20 and 9.0-12.5 (median 11.3) for POPDI-6. The PASS cutoffs with (1) 75th percentile and (2) ROC curve method varied between 57.7-62.5 (median 60.0) for PFDI-20 and 16.7-17.7 (median 17.2) for POPDI-6.
conclusionA mean difference of 24 points in the PFDI-20 or 11 points in the POPDI-6 can be used as a clinically relevant difference between groups. Postoperative scores ≤ 60 for PFDI-20 and ≤ 17 for POPDI-6 signify acceptable symptom state.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.