WaLIDD score, a new tool to diagnose dysmenorrhea and predict medical leave in university students

Aníbal A Teherán, Luis Gabriel Piñeros, Fabián Pulido, María Camila Mejía Guatibonza, Aníbal A Teherán, Luis Gabriel Piñeros, Fabián Pulido, María Camila Mejía Guatibonza

Abstract

Background: Dysmenorrhea is a frequent and misdiagnosed symptom affecting the quality of life in young women. A working ability, location, intensity, days of pain, dysmenorrhea (WaLIDD) score was designed to diagnose dysmenorrhea and to predict medical leave.

Methods: This cross-sectional design included young medical students, who completed a self-administered questionnaire that contained the verbal rating score (VRS; pain and drug subscales) and WaLIDD scales. The correlation between scales was established through Spearman test. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratio (LR +/-) were evaluated to diagnose students availing medical leave due to dysmenorrhea; moreover, to predict medical leave in students with dysmenorrhea, a binary logistic regression was performed.

Results: In all, 585 students, with a mean age of 21 years and menarche at 12 years, participated. Most of them had regular cycles, 5 days of menstrual blood flow and 1-2 days of lower abdominal pain. The WaLIDD scale presented an adequate internal consistency and strong correlation with VRS subscales. With a cutoff of >6 for WaLIDD and 2 for VRS subscales (drug subscale and pain subscale) to identify students with dysmenorrhea, these scales presented an area under the curve (AUC) ROC of 0.82, 0.62, and 0.67, respectively. To identify students taking medical leave due to dysmenorrhea, WaLIDD (cutoff >9) and VRS subscales (cutoff >2) presented an AUC ROC of 0.97, 0.68, and 0.81; moreover, the WaLIDD scale showed a good LR +14.2 (95% CI, 13.5-14.9), LR -0.00 (95% CI, undefined), and predictive risk (OR 5.38; 95% CI, 1.78-16.2).

Conclusion: This research allowed a comparison between two multidimensional scales regarding their capabilities, one previously validated and a new one, to discriminate among the general population of medical students, among those with dysmenorrhea or those availing medical leave secondary to dysmenorrhea. WaLIDD score showed a larger effect size than the pain and drug score in the students. In addition, this study demonstrated the ability to predict this combination of events.

Keywords: clinical decision making; diagnosis; dysmenorrhea; medical students; sick leave.

Conflict of interest statement

Disclosure The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
ROC curves of VRS sub-scores and WaLIDD score in dysmenorrhea cases. Notes: WaLIDD score AUC 0.817 (95% CI, 0.781–0.852); pain score AUC 0.623 (95% CI, 0.570–0.623); drug score AUC 0.678 (95% CI, 0.628–0.727). Abbreviations: AUC, area under the curve; ROC, receiver operating characteristic; VRS, verbal rating score; WaLIDD, working ability, location, intensity, days of pain, dysmenorrhea.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Dysmenorrhea scores in a general population of university students with dysmenorrhea, medical leave, or both features. Notes: The pain and drug scales, both with 0–3 points interval, and working ability, location, intensity, days of pain, dysmenorrhea (WaLIDD) scale with 0–12 points interval, are represented in all university students (general population), with dysmenorrhea (D), with medical leave (ML), or both features (D + ML). Bars without lines or dots represent scores in the general population (pain, drug, WaLIDD); horizontal lines represent students classified with dysmenorrhea (pain D, drug D, WaLIDD D); crossed lines represent students with medical leave (pain ML, drug ML, WaLIDD ML); and dots represent students with dysmenorrhea and medical leave (pain D + ML, drug D + ML, WaLIDD D + ML).
Figure 3
Figure 3
ROC curves of VRS sub-scores and WaLIDD score in dysmenorrhea cases with medical leave. Notes: WaLIDD score AUC 0.974 (95% CI, 0.951–0.997); pain score AUC 0.793 (95% CI, 0.618–0.968); and drug score AUC 0.810 (95% CI, 0.700–0.920). Abbreviations: AUC, area under the curve; ROC, receiver operating characteristic; VRS, verbal rating score; WaLIDD, working ability, location, intensity, days of pain, dysmenorrhea.

References

    1. Osayande AS, Mehulic S. Diagnosis and initial management of dysmenorrhea. Am Fam Physician. 2014;89(5):341–346.
    1. Yasir S, Kant B, Farooq M. Frequency of dysmenorrhea, its impact and management strategies adopted by medical students. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad. 2014;26(3):349–352.
    1. Lefebvre G, Pinsonneault O, Antao V, et al. Primary dysmenorrhea consensus guideline. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2005;169:1117–1130.
    1. Morrow C, Naumburg E. Dysmenorrhea. Prim Care. 2009;36:19–32.
    1. Sahin S, Ozdemir K, Unsal A, Arslan R. Review of frequency of dysmenorrhea and some associated factors and evaluation of the relationship between dysmenorrhea and sleep quality in university students. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2014;78(3):179–185.
    1. Al-Jefout M, Seham A, Jameel H, et al. Dysmenorrhea: prevalence and impact on quality of life among young adult Jordanian females. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol. 2015;28:173–185.
    1. Ju H, Jones M, Mishra G. The prevalence and risk factors of dysmenorrhea. Epidemiol Rev. 2014;36:104–113.
    1. Yáñez N, Bautista-Roa SJ, Ruiz-Sternberg JE, Ruiz-Sternberg AM. Prevalencia y factores asociados a dismenorrea en estudiantes de ciencias de la salud. Rev Cienc Salud. 2010;8(3):37–48. Spanish.
    1. Jiménez GA, González J, Ballesteros H, Miranda Y. Prevalencia, factores de riesgo y características clínicas de la dismenorrea en estudiantes de la facultad de Enfermería de la Universidad Pontificia Bolivariana. Medicina UPB. 2013;32(1):20–29. Spanish.
    1. Monterrosa A. Dismenorrea primaria visión actual. Rev Colomb Ginecol Obstet. 2001;52:4. Spanish.
    1. De Sanctis V, Soliman A, Bernasconi S, et al. Primary dysmenorrhea in adolescents: prevalence, impact and recent knowledge. Pediatr Endocrinol Rev. 2015;13(2):512–520.
    1. Rodríguez AC, Gala S, Neves Â, et al. Dismenorreia em adolescentes e jovens adultas: prevalência, factores associados e limitações na vida diária [Dysmenorrhea in adolescents and young adults: prevalence, related factors and limitations in daily living] Acta Med Port. 2011;24(2):383–388. Portuguese.
    1. Singh A, Kiran D, Singh H, Nel B, Singh P, Tiwari P. Prevalence and severity of dysmenorrhea: a problem related to menstruation, among first and second year female medical students. Indian J Physiol Pharmacol. 2008;52(4):389–397.
    1. Narring F, Yaron M, Ambresin AE. La dysménorrhée: un problème pour le pédiatre? [Dysmenorrhea: a problem for the pediatrician?] Arch Pediatr. 2012;19(2):125–130. French.
    1. Larroy C. Comparing visual-analog and numeric scales for assessing menstrual pain. Behav Med. 2002;27(4):179–181.
    1. Chen CX, Kwekkeboom KL, Ward SE. Self-report pain and symptom measures for primary dysmenorrhea: a critical review. Eur J Pain. 2015;19(3):377–391.
    1. Harada T, Momoeda M, Terakawa N, Taketani Y, Hoshiai H. Evaluation of a low-dose oral contraceptive pill for primary dysmenorrhea: a placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomized trial. Fertil Steril. 2011;95(6):1928–1931.
    1. Andersch B, Milsom I. An epidemiologic study of young women with dysmenorrhea. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1988;144(6):655–660.
    1. Ortiz MI. Primary dysmenorrhea among Mexican university students: prevalence, impact and treatment. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2010;152(1):73–77.
    1. Garra G, Singer AJ, Taira BR, et al. Validation of the Wong–Baker FACES pain rating scale in pediatric emergency department patients. Acad Emerg Med. 2010;17(1):50–54.
    1. Aziato L, Dedey F, Marfo K, Asamani JA, Clegg-Lamptey JN. Validation of three pain scales among adult postoperative patients in Ghana. BMC Nurs. 2015;14:42.
    1. El-Sherbiny W, Saber W, Askalany AN, El-Daly A, Sleem AA. Effect of intra-abdominal instillation of lidocaine during minor laparoscopic procedures. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2009;106(3):213–215.
    1. Maxim LD, Niebo R, Utell MJ. Screening tests: a review with examples. Inhal Toxicol. 2014;26(13):811–828.
    1. Kwuame EP, Mohammed BS. Menstrual pain assessment: comparing verbal rating scale (VRS) with numerical rating scales (NRS) as pain measurement tools. Int J Womens Health Wellness. 2016;2(2):1–5.
    1. Al-Kindi R, Al-Bulushi A. Prevalence and impact of dysmenorrhea among Omani high school students. Sultan Qaboos Univ Med J. 2011;11(4):485–491.
    1. Souza-e-Silva HR, Rocha-Filho PA. Headaches and academic performance in university students: a cross-sectional study. Headache. 2011;51(10):1493–1502.

Source: PubMed

3
Abonner