Translation, reliability, and validity of Amharic versions of the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI-20) and Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire (PFIQ-7).

PURPOSE: Pelvic Floor Disorders (PFDs) affects many women and have a significant impact on their quality of life. Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire (PFIQ-7) and Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI-20) help to assess PFDs; however, both are not culturally translated into the Amharic-language. Hence, we aimed to translate the English versions of short forms of the PFDI-20 and PFIQ-7 into Amharic-language and evaluate their psychometric properties in Amharic-speaking Ethiopian women with symptomatic PFDs. METHODS: The PFDI-20 and PFIQ-7 were translated into Amharic language using standard procedures. The Amharic versions were completed by 197 patients (response rate 92%) with PFDs from University of Gondar specialized and comprehensive Hospital. Internal consistency and test-retest reliability were examined through Cronbach's alpha and Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). A relative criterion standard, POP-SS-7 score, was correlated with total PFDI-20 and subscale POPDI-6 scores using spearman's rank order correlation (SCC). Construct validity was evaluated by known group validity using the Mann-Whitney U test. RESULTS: Both instruments were successfully translated and adapted with an excellent content validity (> 0.90). The Amharic versions of the PFDI-20 and PFIQ-7 showed excellent internal consistency and test-retest reliability in both summary and subscales (Cronbach's alpha: 0.92 for PFDI-20 and 0.91 for PFIQ-7; and ICC: 0.97 for PFDI-20 and 0.86 for PFIQ-7). Criterion validity was good for POPDI-6 (SCC = 0.71; p < 0.001). Moreover, construct validity was acceptable, showing significant differences among groups of PFDs in the PFDI-20 and PFIQ-7 scores (Mann-Whitney U Test; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The Amharic versions of the PFDI-20 and PFIQ-7 are comprehensible, reliable, valid, and feasible in Ethiopian Amharic-speaking women with PFDs to evaluate symptoms and its impact during research and clinical practice. However, further studies are needed to evaluate the responsiveness.

The effect of women's body mass index on pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review and meta analysis.

BACKGROUND: Pelvic organ prolapse remains the public health challenge globally. Existing evidences report the effect of woman's weight on the pelvic organ prolapse inconsistently and this urges the need of pooled body weight effect on the pelvic organ prolapse. Although there was a previous work on this regard, it included papers reported before June 18/2015. Thus, updated and comprehensive evidence in this aspect is essential to devise strategies for interventions. OBJECTIVE: This review aimed at synthesizing evidence regarding the pooled effect of body weight on the pelvic organ prolapsed. METHODS: For this review, we searched all available articles through databases including PubMed, Web of Sciences, CINAHL, JBI library, Cochran library, PsycInfo and EMBASE as well as grey literature including Mednar, worldwide science, PschEXTRA and Google scholar. We included cohort, case-control, cross-sectional and experimental studies which had been reported between March 30, 2005 to March 30, 2020. In the effect analysis, we utilized random model. The heterogeneity of the studies was determined by I2 statistic and the publication bias was checked by Egger's regression test. Searching was limited to studies reported in the English language. RESULTS: A total of 14 articles with 53,797 study participants were included in this systematic review (SR) and meta analysis (MA). The pooled result of this Meta analyses depict that body mass index (BMI) doesn't have statistical significant association with pelvic organ prolapse. CONCLUSION: This review point out that women's body mass index has no significant effect on the development of pelvic organ prolapse. However, the readers should interpret the result with cautions due to the presence of considerable limitations in this work. Trial registration The protocol of this systematic review (SR) and meta analysis (MA) has been registered in PROSPERO databases with the Registration number of CRD42020186951.