Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2020 Mar 1.
Published in final edited form as: Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Nov 22;220(3):265.e1–265.e11. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2018.11.1094

Table 5:

Validity - Change of SF-6D and EQ-5D scores for surgical successes vs. failures at 12 months1

SF-6D EQ-5D
Subsample
N1 		% with
Surgical
Success2 		Surgical
Success
Utility
Score
Change3
(SD/SE)		 Surgical
Failure
Utility
Score
Change3
(SD/SE)		 P-
value		 Subsample
N1 		% with
Surgical
Success2 		Surgical
Success
Utility
Score
Change3
(SD/SE)		 Surgical
Failure
Utility
Score
Change3
(SD/SE)		 P-
value
Overall 991 80.8% 0.052 (0.005) 0.029 (0.009) 0.023 666 76.6% 0.066 (0.008) 0.038 (0.014) 0.034
OPUS 357 75.1% 0.064 (.125) 0.046 (.113) 0.211 381 75.3% 0.052 (.142) 0.037 (.149) 0.391
OPTIMAL 287 76.3% 0.087 (.138) 0.045 (.131) 0.024 285 78.2% 0.081 (.148) 0.035 (.153) 0.035
CARE 260 92.7% 0.044 (.107) 0.023 (.139) 0.538 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
COLPO 87 83.9% 0.014 (.110) 0.016 (.105) 0.967 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
1

Uses only the subsample that had complete surgical success outcomes data at 12 months.

2

The percentage of the subsample that had surgical success outcome data available whose outcomes reflected successful surgery based on the definition of success used in the trial.

3

Change in utility score of 0.03 is generally considered clinically significant. SD shown for individual study results and SE shown for overall study results. Standard errors in the overall results are adjusted for clustering by trial.