Validation of the short forms of the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory and the Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire in Estonian.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI-20) and the Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire (PFIQ-7) are reliable instruments for evaluating the quality of life in women with pelvic organ prolapse (POP). They have been translated and validated in many languages. The study was aimed at validating the Estonian translations of the PFDI-20 and PFIQ-7 tools. METHODS: The questionnaires were translated into Estonian using a multistep translation method. A total of 132 women were enrolled: patients with diagnosed POP (n=57) were allocated to test-retest reliability analyses, and those with no POP signs (n=88) completed the questionnaire only once. The total scores of questionnaires and their subscales of both patient and reference groups were compared. Item response rate, floor and ceiling effects, corrected item-total correlations, internal consistency, and convergent and discriminant validity were analyzed. The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Human Research of the University Clinic of Tartu, Estonia, and informed consent was obtained from each participant. RESULTS: The translated questionnaires demonstrated good internal consistency (Cronbach's α values 0.77-0.93). The item response rate was 99%. Intra-class correlations (ICC) were strong for PFDI-20 and PFIQ-7 and their subscales ranged from 0.86 to 0.96. Construct validity of the tools demonstrated by manyfold higher scores among patients with POP compared with women without POP (p<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The Estonian versions of the PFDI-20 and PFIQ-7 tools are reliable and valid instruments for assessing the quality of life in women with POP.

The expression pattern of endometrial receptivity genes is desynchronized between endometrium and matched endometriomas.

RESEARCH QUESTION: Are paired samples of endometrium and ovarian endometriomas synchronous with each other throughout the menstrual cycle? DESIGN: The expression levels of 57 endometrial receptivity-associated genes were determined from matched endometrial and endometrioma samples (n=31) collected from women with endometriosis throughout the menstrual cycle. RESULTS: The expression profile of endometrial receptivity genes divided endometrial samples according to their menstrual cycle phase. Endometrioma samples grouped together irrespective of the menstrual cycle phase and formed a cluster distinct from endometrial samples. Pairwise comparison showed 21, 16, 33 and 23 differentially expressed genes (adjusted P < 0.001-0.05) between the lesions and endometria collected in the proliferative, early-secretory, mid-secretory and late-secretory menstrual cycle phases, respectively, confirming the distinct expression profiles of endometrium and endometrioma. CONCLUSIONS: No menstrual cycle synchronicity was found between matched eutopic and ectopic endometrium, suggesting that the concept of cycling endometrial tissue inside the endometrioma should be revised.