Authors’ reply to the comment by Hanis et al. on “Predictors of unsuccessful pessary fitting in women with prolapse: a cross-sectional study in general practice,” by Panman et al.

Authors’ reply to the comment by Hanis et al. on “Predictors of unsuccessful pessary fitting... Int Urogynecol J (2017) 28:1441 DOI 10.1007/s00192-017-3421-5 LETTER TO THE EDITOR Authors’ reply to the comment by Hanis et al. on BPredictors of unsuccessful pessary fitting in women with prolapse: a cross-sectional study in general practice,^ by Panman et al. 1 1 Janny H. Dekker & Huibert Burger Received: 12 June 2017 /Accepted: 29 June 2017 /Published online: 26 July 2017 The International Urogynecological Association 2017 Dear Editor, indeed were very careful in interpreting the associations we Thank you very much for giving us the opportunity to respond found in our cross-sectional study. We agree that to the comment of Hani et al. on some methodological aspects bootstrapping or other methods of internal validation are valu- of our study on the success of fitting a pessary in women in able techniques to correct a model for so-called overoptimism. This is particularly important when it is intended that the primary care. The first comment by Hanis et al. is on the cross-sectional model is applicable directly to patients in clinical practice. In design of our study, which would make it difficult to draw our study, however, the aim was more modest, i.e., to generate conclusions on the predictors of fitting success, as this would hypotheses about what the independent predictive factors are, require a longitudinal study. We do not agree with this com- as stated in the Discussion section. Given our sample size, ment: In a cross-sectional study, it is possible to study diag- construction of a final model was beyond our scope. We con- nostic predictors, with the diagnosis in our study being unsuc- cluded that ’further research is needed to confirm the associ- cessful pessary fitting [1]. We agree that no causal inferences ations we found, and prediction models must be validated in should be made in prediction studies (diagnostic and prognos- other primary care populations,^ which is external validation. tic). That is why we stated in our conclusions: BOur results We thank the authors for emphasizing once again which meth- indicated that lower age, higher BMI, and underactive or in- odological considerations should play a role in developing active pelvic floor muscle function were associated with a prediction models. higher risk of unsuccessful pessary fitting.^ In their second comment, Hanis et al. argue that consider- ing the variables age, BMI, and pelvic floor muscle function Reference as independent predictors is an optimistic interpretation. It will be clear from our response on the first comment that we 1. Moons KG, Altman DG, Reitsma JB, Ioannidis JP, Macaskill P, Steyerberg EW, et al. Transparent reporting of a multivariable pre- diction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): ex- planation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162(1):W1–W73. This reply refers to the comment available at doi:10.1007/s00192-017- 3359-7. * Janny H. Dekker j.h.dekker@umcg.nl Department of General Practice, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, P.O. Box 196, 9700 AD Groningen, The Netherlands http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png International Urogynecology Journal Springer Journals

Authors’ reply to the comment by Hanis et al. on “Predictors of unsuccessful pessary fitting in women with prolapse: a cross-sectional study in general practice,” by Panman et al.

Free
1 page

Loading next page...
1 Page
 
/lp/springer_journal/authors-reply-to-the-comment-by-hanis-et-al-on-predictors-of-nCa5kGPR0m
Publisher
Springer London
Copyright
Copyright © 2017 by The International Urogynecological Association
Subject
Medicine & Public Health; Gynecology; Urology
ISSN
0937-3462
eISSN
1433-3023
D.O.I.
10.1007/s00192-017-3421-5
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

There are no references for this article.

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 12 million articles from more than
10,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Unlimited reading

Read as many articles as you need. Full articles with original layout, charts and figures. Read online, from anywhere.

Stay up to date

Keep up with your field with Personalized Recommendations and Follow Journals to get automatic updates.

Organize your research

It’s easy to organize your research with our built-in tools.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

Monthly Plan

  • Read unlimited articles
  • Personalized recommendations
  • No expiration
  • Print 20 pages per month
  • 20% off on PDF purchases
  • Organize your research
  • Get updates on your journals and topic searches

$49/month

Start Free Trial

14-day Free Trial

Best Deal — 39% off

Annual Plan

  • All the features of the Professional Plan, but for 39% off!
  • Billed annually
  • No expiration
  • For the normal price of 10 articles elsewhere, you get one full year of unlimited access to articles.

$588

$360/year

billed annually
Start Free Trial

14-day Free Trial