We have located links that may give you full text access.
Validation of the Patient Global Impression of Improvement for Penile Prosthesis.
Ochsner Journal 2016
BACKGROUND: No consensus on the preferred means of evaluating patients after surgical placement of an inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) currently exists. Many self-assessment questionnaires are available, but none specifically targets patients with IPPs. The purpose of this study was to assess the construct validity of the Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) for evaluating patient satisfaction after placement of an IPP.
METHODS: We conducted a multicenter prospective trial and enrolled patients who elected to have a 3-piece IPP surgically implanted. Postoperatively, patients completed the Sexual Health Inventory for Men (SHIM), Erectile Dysfunction Inventory of Treatment Satisfaction (EDITS), and PGI-I at 3, 6, and 12 months. The Pearson correlation coefficient (PCC) was used to compare scores over time.
RESULTS: Fifty-six patients were enrolled, and complete data were available for 39 patients. At 3 months, the PGI-I correlated with the EDITS (PCC=0.83, P<0.01) and with the SHIM (PCC=0.73, P<0.01). At 6 months, the PGI-I correlated with the EDITS (PCC=0.74, P<0.01). At 6 months, the PCC between the PGI-I and the SHIM was 0.41 (P<0.05). At 12 months, the PCC between the PGI-I and the EDITS was 0.83 (P<0.01), and the PCC between the PGI-I and the SHIM was 0.61 (P<0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the PGI-I appears to correlate with both the SHIM and EDITS and is a valid evaluation tool for use with patients after IPP placement.
METHODS: We conducted a multicenter prospective trial and enrolled patients who elected to have a 3-piece IPP surgically implanted. Postoperatively, patients completed the Sexual Health Inventory for Men (SHIM), Erectile Dysfunction Inventory of Treatment Satisfaction (EDITS), and PGI-I at 3, 6, and 12 months. The Pearson correlation coefficient (PCC) was used to compare scores over time.
RESULTS: Fifty-six patients were enrolled, and complete data were available for 39 patients. At 3 months, the PGI-I correlated with the EDITS (PCC=0.83, P<0.01) and with the SHIM (PCC=0.73, P<0.01). At 6 months, the PGI-I correlated with the EDITS (PCC=0.74, P<0.01). At 6 months, the PCC between the PGI-I and the SHIM was 0.41 (P<0.05). At 12 months, the PCC between the PGI-I and the EDITS was 0.83 (P<0.01), and the PCC between the PGI-I and the SHIM was 0.61 (P<0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the PGI-I appears to correlate with both the SHIM and EDITS and is a valid evaluation tool for use with patients after IPP placement.
Full text links
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app