Patient Global Impression of Severity (PGI-S): Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
Kim Jackson (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
Global ratings can precise when used to assess the same person over time but they have a degress of imprecision across the spectrum of different people who might use it.<ref name="Yalcin" /> | Global ratings can precise when used to assess the same person over time but they have a degress of imprecision across the spectrum of different people who might use it.<ref name="Yalcin" /> | ||
== References == | == References == | ||
<references /> | <references /> | ||
[[Category:Outcome_Measures]] | [[Category:Outcome_Measures]] | ||
Latest revision as of 00:46, 5 August 2019
Original Editor - Kirsten Ryan
Top Contributors - Kirsten Ryan, Admin, WikiSysop and Kim Jackson
Objective
[edit | edit source]
The Patient Global Impression of Severity (PGI-S) is a global index that may be used to rate the severity of a specific condition (a single-state scale). It is a simple, direct, easy to use scale that is intuitively understandable to clinicians.[1]
Intended Population
[edit | edit source]
The PGI-S was validated on women with stress urinary incontinence. It has not been established to be applicable to men and women with other lower urinary tract symptoms or conditions.[1]
Method of Use[edit | edit source]
The PGI-S is a single question asking the patient to rate how their urinary tract condition is now on a scale of 1. Normal to 4. Severe.[1]
Reference
[edit | edit source]
Evidence[edit | edit source]
Reliability[edit | edit source]
Validity[edit | edit source]
The PGI-S has excellent construct validity. The assessment variables included incontinence episode frequency, the Incontinence Quality of Life Questionnaire results, and fixed volume (400 mL) stress pad test results. The category differences for all variables was highly significant (P< .0001).[1]
Responsiveness[edit | edit source]
Miscellaneous
[edit | edit source]
Global ratings can precise when used to assess the same person over time but they have a degress of imprecision across the spectrum of different people who might use it.[1]
