BAIQ CIPTA HARDIANTI 22010111140197 Lap.KTI Bab8
56
DAFTAR PUSTAKA
1. Price Sylvia A, Wilson Lorraine M. Patofisiologi: Konsep Klinis
Proses-Proses Penyakit. Jakarta: EGC; 2012.
2. Doshani A, Teo RE, Mayne CJ, Tincello DG. Uterine prolapse. BMJ:
British Medical Journal [internet]. 2007. [cited 2014 Des 8];
335:819-823.
3. Detollenaere RJ, Boon J, Stekelenburg J, Alhafidh AH, Hakvoort RA,
Vierhout ME, et al. Treatment of Uterine Prolapse Stage 2 or Higher:
A Randomized Multicenter Trial Comparing Sacrospinnosus Fixation
with Vaginal Hysterectomy (SAVE U trial). BMC Womens Health
Journal [internet]. 2011. [cited 2014 Nov 27]; 11(4). Available from:
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6874/11/4
4. Barsoom RS, Dyne PL. Uterine Prolapse in Emergency Medicine.
Medscape Article. [internet]. 2013. [cited 2014 Nov 27 ]. Available
from:http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/797295 overview#showall
5. Pratiwi M, Yoga K, Putra IGM. Pelvic Organ Prolapse. E-Jurnal
Medika Udayana [internet]. 2013 [cited 2014 Des 10]; 2(4):709-736.
6. Kasiati K, Lestari D, Hardianto G. Analisis Faktor yang Berhubungan
dengan Kejadian Prolaps Uteri pada Pasien Kunjungan Baru di Poli
Kandungan RSUD Dr. Soetomo Surabaya. Wahana Riset Kesehatan;
2011.
(2)
8. Worku F, Gebresilassie S. Reproductive Health for Science Students.
In collaboration with The Carter Canter (EPHTI) and The Federal
Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Ministry of Education and Ministry
of Health. University of Gondar; 2008.
9. Anwar Mochamad, Baziad Ali, Prabowo R. Prajitno. Ilmu Kandungan:
Kelainan Letak Alat-Alat Genital. Jakarta: PT Bina Pustaka Sarwono
Prawirohardjo; 2011.
10.Werner C, Moschos E, Griffith W, Beshay V, Rahn D, Richardson D,
et al. Williams Gynecology Study Guide, 2nd ed. United States: Mc
Graw Hill Professional; 2012.
11.Shrestha B, Onta S, Choulagai B, Poudyal A, Pahari DP, Uprety A, et
al. Women’s experiences and health care-seeking practices in relation to uterine prolapse in a hill district of Nepal. BMC Women's Health
[internet]. 2014. [cited 2015 Jan 31]. Available from:
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6874/14/20
12.Shrestha A D, Lakhey B, Sharma J, Singh M, Singh S, Shresta B.
Study team: Prevalence of Uterine Prolapse amongst Gynecology OPD
Patients in Tribhuvan University Teaching Hospital in Nepal and its
Socio‐Cultural Determinants. Case Study 1 Nepal; 2012.
13.Sharma A, Zhang J P. Risk Factors and Symptoms of Uterine
Prolapse: Reality of Nepali Women; 2014.
14.Nizomy IR, Prabowo RP, Hardianto G. Correlation between Risk
(3)
Dr. Soetomo Hospital Surabaya, 2007-2011. Department of Obstetric
& Gynecology Faculty of Medicine, Airlangga University [internet].
2013. [cited 2015 Feb 14]; 21(2):61-66
15.Kuncharapu I, Majeroni BA, Johnson DW. Pelvic Organ Prolapse.
American Academy of Family Physician. 2010;81(9).
16.(https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world
factbook/geos/id.html),
17.Noerpramana, Noor Pramono, Hadijono, R Soerjo, Iskandar, T. Mirza,
Kristanto Herman, Hidayat, Syarief Thaufik, Erwinanto. Praktis Klinis
Obstetri Ginekologi. Semarang: Cakrawala Media; 2013.
18.Berek, Jonathan S. Berek & Novak’s Gynecology 15th ed. Lippincott Williams & wilkins; 2012.
19.Siregar Nurhasidan. Faktor-faktor yang Mempengaruhi Pengetahuan
Ibu tentang Prolapsus Uteri di Rumah Sakit Umum Kesdam Iskandar
Muda Banda Aceh. STIKesU’Budiyah Banda Aceh; 2013.
20.Snell RS. Anatomi Klinis: Berdasarkan Sistem. Jakarta: EGC; 2012.
21.Cunningham FG, Leveno KJ, Bloom SL, Spong CY, Dashe JS,
Hoffman BL, Williams Obstetrics 24th Edition iInternet]. United
States: Mc Graw Hill; 2014. [cited 2014 Des 12]. Available from:
www.mhprofessional.com.
22.Chamberlain Geoffrey, Steer PJ. Turnbull’s Obstetrics 3rd ed. London: Churchill Livingstone; 2002.
(4)
23.Drake RL, Vogl AW, Mitchell AWM, Gray’s Anatomy for Students, 3rd ed. [internet]. London: Churchill Livingstone; 2014 [cited 2015
Jan 13]. Available from:
http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/mcp/education/300.713%20lectures/
2014/byung_kang_pelvis_09.15.2014.pdf
24.Wahyudi. Distribusi Staging dan Faktor Risiko Prolapsus Organ Pelvis
di Poliklinik Ginekologi RS H. Adam Malik / RS dr. Pirngadi Medan
Berdasar Sistem POPQ. USU e-Repository; 2008.
25.Milton S. Hershey Medical Center. Uterine Prolapse [internet]. 2013.
[updated 2013 Aug 5; cited 2015 Jan 28]. Available from:
http://pennstatehershey.adam.com/content.aspx?productId=117&pid=1
&gid=001508
26.Marta, KF. Hubungan Antara Prolaps Organ Panggul dengan Ukuran
Panggul Perempuan Suku Bali. Fakultas Kedokteran Universitas
Udayana Denpasar; 2011.
27.Handa VL, Blomquist JL, McDermott KC, Friedman S, Munoz A.
Pelvic Floor Disorders After Childbirth: Effect of Episiotomy, Perineal
Laceration, and Operative Birth. National Institutes of Health Obstet
Gynecol; 2012. [cited 2015 Feb 20]; 119(2)
28.DeCherney AH, Nathan L. Current Obstetric & Gynecologic:
(5)
29.Brubaker L, et al. Pelvic organ prolapse. Incontinence. 2nd
International Consultation on Incontinence. 2nd ed. Plymouth (UK):
Plymouth Distributors [internet]; 2002: 243-265.
30.Hacker NF. Essentials of Obstetrics and Gynecology edisi 4.
Philadelphia: Elsevier Saunders; 2004.
31.Hasnawati A, Irianta T, Moeljono ER, Miskad UA, Bahar B.
Perbandingan Ekspresi Elastin Ligamentum Sakrouterina Pada
Perempuan Dengan Prolaps Organ Panggul dan Tanpa Prolaps Organ
Panggul. Bagian Obstetri dan Ginekologi Fakultas Kedokteran
Universitas Hasanuddin; 2012.
32.Hunskaar S, Burgio K, Clark A, Lapitain MC, Nelsom R, Sillen U, et
al. Epidemiology of Urinanry )UI) and Faecal (FI) Incontinence and
Pelvic Organ Prolapse (POP) chapter 5.
33.Thapa B, G. Rana, and S. Gurung. Contributing factors of
utero-vaginal prolapse among women attending in Bharatpur Hospital.
Journal of Chitwan Medical College [internet]. 2015; 4(3):38-42.
34.Schorge JO, Schaffer JI, Halvorson LM, Hoffman BL, Bradshaw KD,
Cunningham FG. Williams Gynecology. United States: Mc Graw Hill
Companies; 2008.
35.Mirhashemi Ramin, MD. Treatment of Pelvic Prolapse. Available
from: http://www.gynla.com/expertise/pelvic-prolapse-treatment.php
36.A service of the U.S. National Library of Medicine National Institutes
(6)
Available from:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001508.htm
37.Junizaf, Santoso Budi Iman. Panduan Penatalaksanaan Prolaps Organ
Panggul. Himpunan Uroginekologi-POGI; 2013.
38.Persu C, Chapple CR, Cauni V, Gutue S, Geavlete P. Pelvic Organ
Prolapse Quantification System (POP-Q) – a new era in pelvic prolapse staging. Journal of Medicine and Life [internet]. 2011. [cited
2015 Feb 3]; 4(1):75‐81.
39.Kenny, Dr Beverley. Uterus Showing Prolapse (diagram). Egton
Medical Information Systems Limited [internet]. 2015. Available
from:
http://www.patient.co.uk/diagram/uterus-showing-prolapse-diagram
40.Zulfadli, Fauzi A, Azhari, Theodorus. Impact of Uterine Prolapse
Surgery on Improvement of Bowel Symptoms [internet]. 2014. [cited
2014 Des 13]; 2(3)
41.Shaw R, Luesley D, Monga A (eds). Urogynaecology section.
Gynaecology, 4th ed. London: Churchill Livingstone; 2010.
42.Downing Keith T. Uterine Prolapse: From Antiquity to Today.
Obstetrics and Gynecology International; 2012.
43.International Urogynecological Association. Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A
Guide for Women; 2011.
44.Suryaningdyah Dwika. Hubungan Paritas dengan Kejadian Proaps
(7)
45.Quiroz LH, Munoz A, Shippey SH, Gutman RE, Handa VL. “Vaginal Parity and Pelvic Organ Prolapse. Journal of Reproductive Medicine.
[internet]. 2010. [cited 2015 Jun 19]; 55(3-4):93-98.
46.Fritel X, Varnoux N, Zins M, Breart G, ringa V. Symptomatic Pelvic
Organ Prolapse at Midlife, Qualoty of Life and Risk Factors: The
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologist. [internet]. 2009.
[cited 2015 Jun 20]; 113(2):609-616.
47.Scott J, Disaia Pj, Hammond CB, Spellacy N, Gordon JD. 2002. Buku
Saku Obstetri dan Ginekologi. Jakarta: Widya Medika.
48.Miedel A, Tegerstedt G, Schmidt M, Nyren O, Hammarstrom M.
Nonobstetric Risk Factors for Symptomatic Pelvic Organ Prolapse.
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologist. [internet]. 2009.
[cited 2015 Jun 20]; 113(5):1089-1097.
49.Datta M, Randall L, Holmes N, Kamnaharan N. 2008. Rujukan Cepat
(8)
(9)
(10)
Lampiran 3. Output SPSS Analisis Univariat
Paritas
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid
Multipara 46 82,1 82,1 82,1
Nulipara/Primipara 10 17,9 17,9 100,0
Total 56 100,0 100,0
Dae rah asal
42 75.0 75.0 75.0
14 25.0 25.0 100.0
56 100.0 100.0 Semarang
Luar Semarang Total
Valid
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Pekerjaan
11 19.6 19.6 19.6
45 80.4 80.4 100.0
56 100.0 100.0 Bekerja
Tidak bekerja Total
Valid
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Pendidikan
24 42.9 42.9 42.9
32 57.1 57.1 100.0
56 100.0 100.0 Dasar
Menengah/Tinggi Total
Valid
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Status perkawinan
55 98.2 98.2 98.2
1 1.8 1.8 100.0
56 100.0 100.0
Kawin Tidak kawin Total Valid
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
(11)
BMI
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid
>= 25 27 48,2 48,2 48,2
< 25 29 51,8 51,8 100,0
Total 56 100,0 100,0
Grade Prolaps Uteri
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid
Grade 4 30 53,6 53,6 53,6
Grade 3 12 21,4 21,4 75,0
Grade 2 9 16,1 16,1 91,1
Grade 1 5 8,9 8,9 100,0
Total 56 100,0 100,0
Tindakan
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid
Operatif 38 67,9 67,9 67,9
Non operatif 18 32,1 32,1 100,0
Total 56 100,0 100,0
11 19.6 19.6 100.0
56 100.0 100.0
< 50 tahun Total
Riw ayat haid
47 83.9 83.9 83.9
9 16.1 16.1 100.0
56 100.0 100.0
Menopause Belum Total Valid
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
(12)
Crosstabs
1. Paritas * Diagnosis Prolaps Uteri Crosstab
Diagnosis PU Total Grade III - IV Grade I - II
Paritas
Multipara
Count 41 5 46
Expected Count 34,5 11,5 46,0 % within Diagnosis PU 97,6% 35,7% 82,1%
% of Total 73,2% 8,9% 82,1%
Nulipara/Primipara
Count 1 9 10
Expected Count 7,5 2,5 10,0
% within Diagnosis PU 2,4% 64,3% 17,9%
% of Total 1,8% 16,1% 17,9%
Total
Count 42 14 56
Expected Count 42,0 14,0 56,0 % within Diagnosis PU 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% % of Total 75,0% 25,0% 100,0%
Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Exact Sig. (2-sided)
Exact Sig. (1-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 27,432a 1 ,000
Continuity Correctionb 23,374 1 ,000 Likelihood Ratio 24,852 1 ,000
Fisher's Exact Test ,000 ,000
Linear-by-Linear Association 26,942 1 ,000 N of Valid Cases 56
a. 1 cells (25,0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 2,50. b. Computed only for a 2x2 table
Risk Estimate
Value 95% Confidence Interval Lower Upper Odds Ratio for Paritas (Multipara /
Nulipara/Primipara)
73,800 7,663 710,785 For cohort Diagnosis PU = Grade III - IV 8,913 1,385 57,377 For cohort Diagnosis PU = Grade I - II ,121 ,051 ,283
(13)
2. Usia * Diagnosis Prolaps Uteri
Crosstab
41 4 45
33.8 11.3 45.0 97.6% 28.6% 80.4% 73.2% 7.1% 80.4%
1 10 11
8.3 2.8 11.0 2.4% 71.4% 19.6% 1.8% 17.9% 19.6%
42 14 56
42.0 14.0 56.0 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 75.0% 25.0% 100.0% Count
Expected Count % within Diagnosis PU % of Total
Count
Expected Count % within Diagnosis PU % of Total
Count
Expected Count % within Diagnosis PU % of Total
>= 50 tahun
< 50 tahun Usia
Total
Grade III - IV Grade I - II Diagnosis PU
Total
Chi-Square Tests
31.714b 1 .000
27.491 1 .000
29.283 1 .000
.000 .000
31.148 1 .000
56 Pearson Chi-Square
Continuity Correctiona
Likelihood Ratio Fisher's Exact Test Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Exact Sig. (2-sided) Exact Sig. (1-sided)
Computed only for a 2x2 table a.
1 cells (25.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 2. 75.
b.
Risk Estimate
102.500 10.300 1020.058
10.022 1.543 65.091
.098 .038 .254
56 Odds Ratio for Usia (>=
50 tahun / < 50 tahun) For cohort Diagnosis PU = Grade III - IV For cohort Diagnosis PU = Grade I - II N of Valid Cases
Value Lower Upper
95% Confidence Interval
(14)
3. Menopause * Diagnosis Prolaps Uteri
Crosstab
41 6 47
35.3 11.8 47.0
97.6% 42.9% 83.9%
73.2% 10.7% 83.9%
1 8 9
6.8 2.3 9.0
2.4% 57.1% 16.1%
1.8% 14.3% 16.1%
42 14 56
42.0 14.0 56.0
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
75.0% 25.0% 100.0%
Count
Expected Count % within Diagnosis PU % of Total
Count
Expected Count % within Diagnosis PU % of Total
Count
Expected Count % within Diagnosis PU % of Total
Menopause
Belum Riwayat
haid
Total
Grade III - IV Grade I - II Diagnosis PU
Total
Chi-Square Tests
23.344b 1 .000
19.461 1 .000
20.803 1 .000
.000 .000
22.928 1 .000
56 Pearson Chi-Square
Continuity Correctiona
Likelihood Ratio Fisher's Exact Test Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Exact Sig. (2-sided) Exact Sig. (1-sided)
Computed only for a 2x2 table a.
1 cells (25.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 2. 25.
b.
Risk Estimate
54.667 5.771 517.865
7.851 1.233 49.987
.144 .066 .314
56 Odds Ratio for Riwayat
haid (Menopause / Belum)
For cohort Diagnosis PU = Grade III - IV For cohort Diagnosis PU = Grade I - II N of Valid Cases
Value Lower Upper
95% Confidence Interval
(15)
4. BMI * Diagnosis Prolaps Uteri
Crosstab
21 6 27
20.3 6.8 27.0
50.0% 42.9% 48.2%
37.5% 10.7% 48.2%
21 8 29
21.8 7.3 29.0
50.0% 57.1% 51.8%
37.5% 14.3% 51.8%
42 14 56
42.0 14.0 56.0
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
75.0% 25.0% 100.0%
Count
Expected Count
% within Diagnosis PU % of Total
Count
Expected Count
% within Diagnosis PU % of Total
Count
Expected Count
% within Diagnosis PU % of Total
>= 23
< 23 BMI
Total
Grade III - IV Grade I - II Diagnosis PU
Total
Chi-Square Tests
.215b 1 .643
.024 1 .877
.215 1 .643
.761 .440
.211 1 .646
56 Pearson Chi-Square
Continuity Correctiona
Likelihood Ratio Fisher's Exact Test Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Exact Sig. (2-sided) Exact Sig. (1-sided)
Computed only for a 2x2 table a.
0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 6. 75.
b.
Risk Estimate
1.333 .394 4.512
1.074 .794 1.453
.806 .321 2.021
56 Odds Ratio for BMI
(> = 23 / < 23)
For cohort Diagnosis PU = Grade III - IV For cohort Diagnosis PU = Grade I - II N of Valid Cases
Value Lower Upper
95% Confidence Interval
(16)
Logistic Regression
Variables in the Equation
42.787 49226.046 .000 1 .999 4E+018 .000 . -19.257 40192.887 .000 1 1.000 .000 .000 .
-19.257 28420.710 .000 1 .999 .000 .000 .
-6.600 1.497 19.446 1 .000 .001
23.530 28420.716 .000 1 .999 2E+010 .000 .
-19.123 28420.716 .000 1 .999 .000 .000 .
-6.734 1.491 20.403 1 .000 .001
4.630 1.172 15.596 1 .000 102.500 10.300 1020.058 -6.957 1.482 22.025 1 .000 .001
Usia Paritas Haid Constant Step
1a
Usia Haid Constant Step
2a
Usia Constant Step
3a
B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B) Lower Upper
95.0% C.I.for EXP(B)
Variable(s) entered on step 1: Usia, Paritas, Haid. a.
(17)
Lampiran 4. Identitas mahasiswa
IDENTITAS MAHASISWA
Nama : Baiq Cipta Hardianti
NIM : 22010111140197
Tempat/tanggal lahir : Sintung, 13 Juli 1993
Jenis kelamin : Perempuan
Alamat : Sintung, Kecamatan Pringgarata, Lombok Tengah, NTB
Nomor HP : 087864092298 / 085713421504
E-mail : baiqcipta@ymail.com
Riwayat Pendidikan Formal
1. SD : SD Negeri Esot Lulus tahun : 2005
2. SMP : SMP Negeri 1 Narmada Lulus tahun : 2008
3. SMA : SMA Negeri 1 Mataram Lulus tahun : 2011
(1)
Crosstabs
1.
Paritas * Diagnosis Prolaps Uteri
CrosstabDiagnosis PU Total
Grade III - IV Grade I - II
Paritas
Multipara
Count 41 5 46
Expected Count 34,5 11,5 46,0
% within Diagnosis PU 97,6% 35,7% 82,1%
% of Total 73,2% 8,9% 82,1%
Nulipara/Primipara
Count 1 9 10
Expected Count 7,5 2,5 10,0
% within Diagnosis PU 2,4% 64,3% 17,9%
% of Total 1,8% 16,1% 17,9%
Total
Count 42 14 56
Expected Count 42,0 14,0 56,0
% within Diagnosis PU 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%
% of Total 75,0% 25,0% 100,0%
Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Exact Sig. (2-sided)
Exact Sig. (1-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 27,432a 1 ,000
Continuity Correctionb 23,374 1 ,000
Likelihood Ratio 24,852 1 ,000
Fisher's Exact Test ,000 ,000
Linear-by-Linear Association 26,942 1 ,000
N of Valid Cases 56
a. 1 cells (25,0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 2,50. b. Computed only for a 2x2 table
Risk Estimate
Value 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Upper
Odds Ratio for Paritas (Multipara / Nulipara/Primipara)
73,800 7,663 710,785
For cohort Diagnosis PU = Grade III - IV 8,913 1,385 57,377
For cohort Diagnosis PU = Grade I - II ,121 ,051 ,283
(2)
2.
Usia * Diagnosis Prolaps Uteri
Crosstab
41 4 45
33.8 11.3 45.0
97.6% 28.6% 80.4%
73.2% 7.1% 80.4%
1 10 11
8.3 2.8 11.0
2.4% 71.4% 19.6%
1.8% 17.9% 19.6%
42 14 56
42.0 14.0 56.0
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
75.0% 25.0% 100.0%
Count
Expected Count % within Diagnosis PU % of Total
Count
Expected Count % within Diagnosis PU % of Total
Count
Expected Count % within Diagnosis PU % of Total
>= 50 tahun
< 50 tahun Usia
Total
Grade III - IV Grade I - II Diagnosis PU
Total
Chi-Square Tests
31.714b 1 .000
27.491 1 .000
29.283 1 .000
.000 .000
31.148 1 .000
56 Pearson Chi-Square
Continuity Correctiona Likelihood Ratio Fisher's Exact Test Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases
Value df
Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Exact Sig. (2-sided)
Exact Sig. (1-sided)
Computed only for a 2x2 table a.
1 cells (25.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 2. 75.
b.
Risk Estimate
102.500 10.300 1020.058
10.022 1.543 65.091
.098 .038 .254
56 Odds Ratio for Usia (>=
50 tahun / < 50 tahun) For cohort Diagnosis PU = Grade III - IV For cohort Diagnosis PU = Grade I - II N of Valid Cases
Value Lower Upper
95% Confidence Interval
(3)
3.
Menopause * Diagnosis Prolaps Uteri
Crosstab
41 6 47
35.3 11.8 47.0
97.6% 42.9% 83.9%
73.2% 10.7% 83.9%
1 8 9
6.8 2.3 9.0
2.4% 57.1% 16.1%
1.8% 14.3% 16.1%
42 14 56
42.0 14.0 56.0
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
75.0% 25.0% 100.0%
Count
Expected Count % within Diagnosis PU % of Total
Count
Expected Count % within Diagnosis PU % of Total
Count
Expected Count % within Diagnosis PU % of Total
Menopause
Belum Riwayat
haid
Total
Grade III - IV Grade I - II Diagnosis PU
Total
Chi-Square Tests
23.344b 1 .000
19.461 1 .000
20.803 1 .000
.000 .000
22.928 1 .000
56 Pearson Chi-Square
Continuity Correctiona Likelihood Ratio Fisher's Exact Test Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases
Value df
Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Exact Sig. (2-sided)
Exact Sig. (1-sided)
Computed only for a 2x2 table a.
1 cells (25.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 2. 25.
b.
Risk Estimate
54.667 5.771 517.865
7.851 1.233 49.987
.144 .066 .314
56 Odds Ratio for Riwayat
haid (Menopause / Belum)
For cohort Diagnosis PU = Grade III - IV For cohort Diagnosis PU = Grade I - II N of Valid Cases
Value Lower Upper
95% Confidence Interval
(4)
4.
BMI * Diagnosis Prolaps Uteri
Crosstab
21 6 27
20.3 6.8 27.0
50.0% 42.9% 48.2%
37.5% 10.7% 48.2%
21 8 29
21.8 7.3 29.0
50.0% 57.1% 51.8%
37.5% 14.3% 51.8%
42 14 56
42.0 14.0 56.0
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
75.0% 25.0% 100.0%
Count
Expected Count
% within Diagnosis PU % of Total
Count
Expected Count
% within Diagnosis PU % of Total
Count
Expected Count
% within Diagnosis PU % of Total
>= 23
< 23 BMI
Total
Grade III - IV Grade I - II Diagnosis PU
Total
Chi-Square Tests
.215b 1 .643
.024 1 .877
.215 1 .643
.761 .440
.211 1 .646
56 Pearson Chi-Square
Continuity Correctiona Likelihood Ratio Fisher's Exact Test Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases
Value df
Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Exact Sig. (2-sided)
Exact Sig. (1-sided)
Computed only for a 2x2 table a.
0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 6. 75.
b.
Risk Estimate
1.333 .394 4.512
1.074 .794 1.453
.806 .321 2.021
56 Odds Ratio for BMI
(> = 23 / < 23)
For cohort Diagnosis PU = Grade III - IV For cohort Diagnosis PU = Grade I - II N of Valid Cases
Value Lower Upper
95% Confidence Interval
(5)
Logistic Regression
Variables in the Equation
42.787 49226.046 .000 1 .999 4E+018 .000 .
-19.257 40192.887 .000 1 1.000 .000 .000 .
-19.257 28420.710 .000 1 .999 .000 .000 .
-6.600 1.497 19.446 1 .000 .001
23.530 28420.716 .000 1 .999 2E+010 .000 .
-19.123 28420.716 .000 1 .999 .000 .000 .
-6.734 1.491 20.403 1 .000 .001
4.630 1.172 15.596 1 .000 102.500 10.300 1020.058
-6.957 1.482 22.025 1 .000 .001
Usia Paritas Haid Constant Step
1a
Usia Haid Constant Step
2a
Usia Constant Step
3a
B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B) Lower Upper
95.0% C.I.for EXP(B)
Variable(s) entered on step 1: Usia, Paritas, Haid. a.
(6)