Clinical-decision taking in primary pelvic organ prolapse; the effects of diagnostic tests on treatment selection in comparison with a consensus meeting
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The objective of the study was to establish the effects of additional diagnostic tests compared to a consensus outcome on treatment selection in primary pelvic organ prolapse. METHODS: Three expert gynecologists individually defined a management plan in 53 patients after magnetic resonance imaging, defecography, urodynamic, and anorectal function test information was provided. These management plans were compared with basic treatment advices in the absence of any test and with consensus advices (opinion-based references). The experts assigned a subjective score (assigned diagnostic value [ADV], 0-100%) to rate the test's relative importance. RESULTS: On average, additional diagnostic testing resulted in a revised initial management plan in 38% of the cases; 24% of the individual management plans did not meet the consensus reference. Overall defecography was regarded most valuable (ADV range 19-65%) vs. magnetic resonance imaging rated least (ADV range 0-37%). CONCLUSIONS: Although additional diagnostic tests frequently led to adaptations of basic treatment proposals, consensus was not reached in a fourth of the cases.
|Keywords||*Decision Making, Aged, Anorectal function testing, Clinical decision-making, Consensus, Defecography, Female, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Middle Aged, Pelvic organ prolapse, Urodynamic evaluation, Urodynamics, Uterine Prolapse/*diagnosis/therapy|
|Persistent URL||dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00192-009-0846-5, hdl.handle.net/1765/19448|
|Journal||International Urogynecology Journal: and pelvic floor dysfunction|
Groenendijk, A.G, Birnie, E, de Blok, S, Adriaanse, A.H, Ankum, W.M, Roovers, J-P.W, & Bonsel, G.J. (2009). Clinical-decision taking in primary pelvic organ prolapse; the effects of diagnostic tests on treatment selection in comparison with a consensus meeting. International Urogynecology Journal: and pelvic floor dysfunction, 20(6), 711–719. doi:10.1007/s00192-009-0846-5