Introduction and hypothesis: The Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI) and PFDI-20 have been translated and validated into several languages with different measurement property values and are recommended by the International Consultation on Incontinence (ICI) as grade A for assessing pelvic floor dysfunction. Thus, the aim of the current study was to investigate the measurement properties of the PFDI and PFDI-20.
Methods: Systematic review conducted in August 2020 through a search performed in PubMed, SCOPUS, WoS, ScienceDirect, CINAHL, and Google Scholar for studies that evaluated the measurement properties of the PFDI and PFDI-20. The data were analyzed according to the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN).
Results: Initially, 2857 studies were found, and 7 studies on PFDI and 25 on PFDI-20 were analyzed. The PFDI presented high quality of evidence for hypothesis testing, moderate for test-retest reliability and responsiveness, and very low quality of evidence for content validity. The PFDI-20 presented high quality of evidence for criterion validity, hypothesis testing, and responsiveness, moderate quality for test-retest reliability and measurement errors, and very low quality of evidence for content validity. It was not possible to rate the quality of evidence of the internal consistency of the PFDI and PFDI-20. No studies assessed the cross-cultural validity.
Conclusion: Only the hypothesis testing presented high quality of evidence for the PFDI. Criterion validity, hypothesis testing, and responsiveness presented a high quality of evidence for the PFDI-20. Due to the high degree of recommendation of the PFDI and PFDI-20 given by the ICI, further studies are needed to reevaluate all the measurement properties of these instruments.
Keywords: Patient-reported outcome measures; Pelvic floor disorders; Validation study; Women.
© 2021. The International Urogynecological Association.