ArticleBMC women's health2023
External validation of the de novo stress urinary incontinence prediction model after pelvic organ prolapse surgery in Korean women: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in BMC women's health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- De-Novo Stress Urinary Incontinence After Apical Prolapse Surgery: Potential Link with the Zone of Critical Elasticity.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- A multidimensional analysis-based risk prediction model for stress urinary incontinence in middle-aged and elderly women.BMC women's health · 2025Article
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 at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDe novo stress urinary incontinence (SUI) may develop following pelvic organ prolapse surgery. Performing prophylactic continence surgery may reduce the risk of de novo SUI and subsequent continence surgery; however, it may increase the risk of complications. Therefore, many surgeons try to identify women at high risk for de novo SUI and perform continence surgery selectively. Recently, a model for predicting the risk of de novo SUI after prolapse surgery was developed using data from the Outcomes following vaginal Prolapse repair and midUrethral Sling (OPUS) trial; its prediction accuracy was significantly better than that of the stress test alone. However, few studies have verified its prediction accuracy in discrete populations. The aim of this study was to externally validate the prediction model for de novo SUI after prolapse surgery in Korean women.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study included 320 stress-continent women who underwent prolapse surgery for pelvic organ prolapse quantification stage 2-4 anterior or apical prolapse and who completed a 1-year follow-up. Predicted probabilities by the de novo SUI online risk calculator were compared with observed outcomes and quantitated using the model's area under the curve and calibration plot. Subgroup analyses were also performed by the type of prolapse surgery.
resultsThe de novo SUI prediction model showed moderate discrimination in our study cohort; area under the curve (95% confidence interval) = 0.73 (0.67-0.78) in the whole cohort, 0.69 (0.61-0.78) in women who underwent native tissue repair or colpocleisis, and 0.74 (0.65-0.82) in those who underwent sacrocolpopexy. Calibration curves demonstrated that the model accurately predicted the observed outcomes of de novo SUI in women who underwent native tissue repair or colpocleisis but underestimated outcomes in those who underwent sacrocolpopexy. The predicted probability cutoff points corresponding to an actual risk of 50% were 40% in women who underwent native tissue repair or colpocleisis and 30% in those who underwent sacrocolpopexy.
conclusionsThe de novo SUI prediction model is acceptable for use in Korean women and may aid in shared decision-making regarding prophylactic continence procedure at the time of prolapse surgery.
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.