Validation of a Model Predicting De Novo Stress Urinary Incontinence in Women Undergoing Pelvic Organ Prolapse Surgery.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE:To validate a previously developed prediction model for de novo stress urinary
incontinence (SUI) after undergoing vaginal surgery for pelvic organ prolapse (POP).
METHODS:Model performance was determined using a cohort of women who participated
in two, 14-center randomized trials in the Netherlands that evaluated whether postoperative
SUI 1 year after surgery was reduced with or without concomitant midurethral sling
at the time of surgery for symptomatic women who had at least stage 2 POP. Age, number
of previous vaginal births, urine leakage associated with urgency, history of diabetes,
body mass index, preoperative stress test result, and placement of a midurethral sling
were used to calculate the predicted probability of an individual developing de novo
SUI. Predicted probabilities were compared with outcomes and quantitated using the
concordance index and calibration curves. Model accuracy was compared with and without
the preoperative stress test, and net reclassification improvement was measured using
probability cutoffs of 0.2, 0.3, and 0.4. RESULTS:Of 239 participants who did not
report preoperative SUI and underwent surgery, 152 were eligible for analysis with
complete baseline and outcome data. Model discrimination was acceptable and consistent
with performance in the original development cohort when the preoperative stress test
result was included (concordance index 0.63; 95% CI 0.52-0.74) and had lower discrimination
than when the stress test variable was not included (concordance index 0.57; 95% CI
0.46-0.67, P=.048). The model that included the stress test variable was most accurate
when predicted probabilities of de novo SUI were between 0 and 50%, and it correctly
reclassified upward 5.9% (95% CI -14.8 to 26.8) of participants with de novo SUI and
correctly reclassified downward 16.9% (95% CI 6.6-27.7) of participants without de
novo SUI. CONCLUSION:On external validation, the model was predictive of de novo SUI
after vaginal prolapse surgery and may facilitate decision making regarding concomitant
sling placement. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION:Nederlands Trial Register, NTRR 1197
en 1070.
Type
Journal articleSubject
Science & TechnologyLife Sciences & Biomedicine
Obstetrics & Gynecology
GENITAL PROLAPSE
URODYNAMICS
REPAIR
CURVE
RISK
Permalink
https://hdl.handle.net/10161/19756Published Version (Please cite this version)
10.1097/aog.0000000000003158Publication Info
Jelovsek, J Eric; van der Ploeg, J Marinus; Roovers, Jan-Paul; & Barber, Matthew D (2019). Validation of a Model Predicting De Novo Stress Urinary Incontinence in Women Undergoing
Pelvic Organ Prolapse Surgery. Obstetrics and gynecology, 133(4). pp. 683-690. 10.1097/aog.0000000000003158. Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/10161/19756.This is constructed from limited available data and may be imprecise. To cite this
article, please review & use the official citation provided by the journal.
Collections
More Info
Show full item recordScholars@Duke
Matthew Don Barber
W. Allen Addison, M.D. Distinguished Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology
John E Jelovsek
F. Bayard Carter Distinguished Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology
Dr. Jelovsek is the F. Bayard Carter Distinguished Professor of OBGYN at Duke University
and serves as Director of Data Science for Women’s Health. He is Board Certified in
OBGYN by the American Board of OBGYN and in Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive
Surgery by the American Board of OBGYN and American Board of Urology. He has an active
surgical practice in urogynecology based out of Duke Raleigh. He has expertise as
a clinician-scientist in developing and evaluating clini
Alphabetical list of authors with Scholars@Duke profiles.

Articles written by Duke faculty are made available through the campus open access policy. For more information see: Duke Open Access Policy
Rights for Collection: Scholarly Articles
Works are deposited here by their authors, and represent their research and opinions, not that of Duke University. Some materials and descriptions may include offensive content. More info