This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Original Article
Kelly Yvonne Roger Stevens
Catharina Ziekenhuis
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3512-9181
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
Study Objective: External validation of previously presented and locally established prediction models to help counsel patients for failure of endometrial ablation (EA) or surgical re-intervention within 2 years after EA, called ‘Failure model’ and ‘Re-intervention model’ respectively.
Design: Retrospective external validation study, minimal follow-up time of 2 years.
Setting: Two non-academic teaching hospitals in the Netherlands.
Patients: Pre-menopausal women (18+) who had undergone EA for abnormal uterine bleeding problems between January 2010 and November 2012. A total of 329 patients were eligible for analysis.
Interventions: Interventions used for EA were Novasure (Hologic, Marlborough, Massachusetts, US) and ThermaChoice III (Ethicon, Sommerville, US).
Measurements and Main Results: The Area Under the Receiver Operating characteristics Curve (AUROC) for the outcome parameter of failure within 2 years after EA was 0.59 (95% CI 0.53 – 0.65). Variables in this model were dysmenorrhea, age, parity ≥5 and preoperative menorrhagia. The Hosmer-Lemeshow test showed no significant difference between the observed and predicted outcome. (Chi-square: 4.62, P-value: .80) The AUROC for the outcome parameter surgical re-intervention within 2 years was 0.62 (95% CI 0.53 – 0.70) Variables in this model were dysmenorrhea, age, menstrual duration> 7 days, parity ≥5 and a previous caesarean section. The Hosmer-Lemeshow test showed no significant difference between the observed and predicted outcome (Chi-square 11.34, P-value .18).
Conclusion: Both the failure model and the re-intervention model can be used to predict unsuccessful endometrial ablation in the general population within two years after the procedure. It can be used prior to surgery to facilitate tailor-made shared decision-making, and help counsel patients with regards to the potential outcome of their treatment with the use of a personally calculated percentage.
Keywords
Endometrial ablation, external validation, prediction model
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
This preprint is available for download as a PDF.
Loading...
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
History
CURRENT STATUS: Posted
Version 1
Posted 22 Feb, 2021
No community comments so far
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Obstetrics & Gynecology
Learn more about our company.
This is a preprint. It has not completed peer review.
Original Article
Kelly Yvonne Roger Stevens
Catharina Ziekenhuis
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3512-9181
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
History
CURRENT STATUS: Posted
Version 1
Posted 22 Feb, 2021
No community comments so far
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Obstetrics & Gynecology
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
Study Objective: External validation of previously presented and locally established prediction models to help counsel patients for failure of endometrial ablation (EA) or surgical re-intervention within 2 years after EA, called ‘Failure model’ and ‘Re-intervention model’ respectively.
Design: Retrospective external validation study, minimal follow-up time of 2 years.
Setting: Two non-academic teaching hospitals in the Netherlands.
Patients: Pre-menopausal women (18+) who had undergone EA for abnormal uterine bleeding problems between January 2010 and November 2012. A total of 329 patients were eligible for analysis.
Interventions: Interventions used for EA were Novasure (Hologic, Marlborough, Massachusetts, US) and ThermaChoice III (Ethicon, Sommerville, US).
Measurements and Main Results: The Area Under the Receiver Operating characteristics Curve (AUROC) for the outcome parameter of failure within 2 years after EA was 0.59 (95% CI 0.53 – 0.65). Variables in this model were dysmenorrhea, age, parity ≥5 and preoperative menorrhagia. The Hosmer-Lemeshow test showed no significant difference between the observed and predicted outcome. (Chi-square: 4.62, P-value: .80) The AUROC for the outcome parameter surgical re-intervention within 2 years was 0.62 (95% CI 0.53 – 0.70) Variables in this model were dysmenorrhea, age, menstrual duration> 7 days, parity ≥5 and a previous caesarean section. The Hosmer-Lemeshow test showed no significant difference between the observed and predicted outcome (Chi-square 11.34, P-value .18).
Conclusion: Both the failure model and the re-intervention model can be used to predict unsuccessful endometrial ablation in the general population within two years after the procedure. It can be used prior to surgery to facilitate tailor-made shared decision-making, and help counsel patients with regards to the potential outcome of their treatment with the use of a personally calculated percentage.
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
This preprint is available for download as a PDF.
Loading...