Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2006 May;194(5):1492-8.
doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2006.01.076.

Responsiveness of the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI) and Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire (PFIQ) in women undergoing vaginal surgery and pessary treatment for pelvic organ prolapse

Matthew D Barber  1 , Mark D Walters, Geoffrey W Cundiff; PESSRI Trial Group
Affiliations
Comparative Study

Responsiveness of the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI) and Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire (PFIQ) in women undergoing vaginal surgery and pessary treatment for pelvic organ prolapse

Matthew D Barber et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006 May.

Abstract

Objective: This study was undertaken to evaluate the responsiveness of the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI) and Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire (PFIQ) in women with pelvic organ prolapse undergoing surgical and nonsurgical management.

Study design: The responsiveness of the prolapse, urinary and colorectal scales of the PFDI and PFIQ were assessed in 2 independent populations: (1) 42 women with stage II or greater prolapse enrolled in an ongoing multicenter randomized trial comparing 2 different pessaries (Pessary group) and (2) 64 women with stage III or greater prolapse who underwent vaginal reconstructive surgery (Surgery group). All subjects completed the PFDI and PFIQ at baseline and again either 3 months (Pessary group) or 6 months (Surgery group) after initiation of treatment. Responsiveness was assessed with standardized response mean (SRM), effect size (ES), and the paired t test.

Results: In the Pessary group, there was a significant improvement in the prolapse and urinary scales of the PFDI, with each demonstrating moderate responsiveness (prolapse: SRM 0.69, ES 0.68; urinary: SRM 0.57, ES: 0.50, P < .001 for each). The colorectal scale of the PFDI and each of the 3 scales of the PFIQ demonstrated no significant change in scores with pessary use. In the Surgery group, there was a significant improvement in the prolapse, urinary, and colorectal scales of both the PFDI and PFIQ (P < .01 for each). The prolapse and urinary scales of the PFDI demonstrated excellent responsiveness with SRM and ES 1.20 or greater for the prolapse scale and equal to1.05 for the urinary scales. The colorectal scale of the PFDI and the urinary and prolapse scales of the PFIQ demonstrated moderate responsiveness (SRM 0.61-0.70 and ES 0.56-0.60) after surgery. Subjects who had a recurrence of their prolapse develop after surgery (6%) had significantly less improvement in the prolapse scale of the PFDI than those who did not. After controlling for preoperative prolapse stage and baseline quality of life scores, subjects in the Surgery group had significantly greater improvement in each of the scales of the PFDI and the prolapse and urinary scales of the PFIQ than did the Pessary group (P < .05 for each).

Conclusion: The PFDI and PFIQ are responsive to change in women undergoing surgical and nonsurgical treatment for pelvic organ prolapse. The PFDI is more responsive than the PFIQ.

PubMed Disclaimer