Role of composite endpoints as an outcome assessment tool in urogenital prolapse

References

• Barber MD, Brubaker L, Nygaard I, Wheeler TL 2nd, Schaffer J, Chen Z .; Pelvic Floor Disorders Network. 2009. Defining success after surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Obstetrics and Gynecology 114:600–609.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Black N, Griffiths J, Pope C, Bowling A, Abel P. 1997. Impact of surgery for stress incontinence on morbidity: cohort study. British Medical Journal 315:1493–1498.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brubaker L, Bump RC, Fynes M, Jacquetin B, Karram M, Kreder K . 2005. In: Abrams P, Cardozo L, Koury S ., editors. Surgery for pelvic organ prolapse; 3rd international consultation on incontinence. Paris: Health Publication Ltd. p. 1371–1401.
   Google Scholar
• Bump RC, Mattiasson A, Bo K, Brubaker LP, DeLancey JOL, Klarskov P . 1996. The standardisation of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 175:10–11.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burgio KL, Nygaard IE, Richter HE, Brubaker L, Gutman RE, Leng W .; Pelvic Floor Disorders Network. 2007. Bladder symptoms 1 year after abdominal sacrocolpopexy with and without Burch colposuspension in women without preoperative stress incontinence symptoms. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 197:647.e1–e6.
   Google Scholar
• Carey M, Higgs P, Goh J, Lim J, Leong A, Krause H . 2009. Vaginal repair with mesh versus colporrhaphy for prolapse: a randomised controlled trial. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 116:1380–1386.
   Google Scholar
• Collins J. 2005. Which randomized controlled trials are relevant to clinical practice? Obstetrics and Gynecology 106:216–218.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Digesu GA, Chaliha C, Salvatore S, Hutchings A, Khullar V. 2005. The relationship of vaginal prolapse severity to symptoms and quality of life. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 112:971–976.
   Google Scholar
• Elkadry EA, Kenton KS, FitzGerald MP, Shott S, Brubaker L. 2003. Patient-selected goals: A new perspective on surgical outcome. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 189:1551–1557.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freemantle N, Calvert M, Wood J, Eastaugh J, Griffin C. 2003. Composite outcomes in randomized trials: greater precision but with greater uncertainty? Journal of the American Medical Association 289:2554–2559.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gensini G, Conti A. 2004. The evaluation of the results of clinical trials: surrogate endpoints and composite endpoints. Minerva Medica 95:71–75.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hullfish KL, Bovbjerg VE, Gibson J, Steers WD. 2002. Patient centered goals for pelvic floor dysfunction surgery: what is success and is it achieved? American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 187:88–92.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hutcheon J, Lisonkova S, Magee L, von Dadelszen P, Woo H, Liu S . 2011. Optimal timing of delivery in pregnancies with pre-existing hypertension. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 118:49–54.
   Google Scholar
• Kelleher CJ, Pleil AM, Reese PR, Burgess SM, Brodish PH. 2004. How much is enough and who says so? British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 111:605–612.
   Google Scholar
• Lose G, Fantl A, Victor A, Walter S, Wells T, Wyman J . 1998. Outcome measures for research in adult women with symptoms of lower urinary tract dysfunction. Neurourology and Urodynamics 17:255.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lowenstein L, FitzGerald MP, Kenton K, Dooley Y, Templehof M, Mueller ER . 2008. Patient-selected goals: the fourth dimension in assessment of pelvic floor disorders. International Urogynecology Journal and Pelvic Floor Dysfunction 19:81–84.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Maher C, Baessler K, Glazener CM, Adams EJ, Hagen S. 2004. Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (4):CD004014.
   Google Scholar
• Mattiasson A, Djurhuus JC, Fonda D, Lose G, Nordling J, Stohrer M. 1998. Standardization of outcome studies in patients with lower urinary tract dysfunction: a report on general principles from the Standardisation Committee of the International Continence Society. Neurourology and Urodynamics 17:249.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Montori VM, Permanyer-Miralda G, Ferreira-González I, Busse JW, Pacheco-Huergo V, Bryant D . 2005. Validity of composite endpoints in clinical trials. British Medical Journal 330:594–596.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olsen AL Smith VJ, Bergstrom JO, Colling JC, Clark AL. 1997. Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. British Medical Journal 89:501–506.
   Google Scholar
• Srikrishna S, Robinson D, Cardozo L. 2008. Is there a difference in patient and physician Quality of Life evaluation in pelvic organ prolapse? International Urogynecology Journal and Pelvic Floor Dysfunction 19:517–520.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Srikrishna S, Robinson D, Cardozo L. 2010. Validation of the patient global impression of Improvement (PGI-I) for urogenital prolapse. International Urogynecology Journal and Pelvic Floor Dysfunction 21:523–528.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weber AM, Abrams P, Brubaker L, Cundiff G, Davis G, Dmochowski RR . 2001. The standardization of terminology for researchers in female pelvic floor disorders. International Urogynecology Journal and Pelvic Floor Dysfunction 12:178–186.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yalcin I, Bump RC. 2003. Validation of two global impression questionnaires for incontinence. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 189:98–101.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang B, Schmidt B. 2001. Do we measure the right endpoints? A systematic review of primary outcomes in recent neonatal randomized clinical trials. Journal of Pediatrics 138:76–80.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar