Professional Documents
Culture Documents
BAIQ CIPTA HARDIANTI 22010111140197 Lap - KTI Bab8 PDF
BAIQ CIPTA HARDIANTI 22010111140197 Lap - KTI Bab8 PDF
2. Doshani A, Teo RE, Mayne CJ, Tincello DG. Uterine prolapse. BMJ:
British Medical Journal [internet]. 2007. [cited 2014 Des 8]; 335:819-
823.
Journal [internet]. 2011. [cited 2014 Nov 27]; 11(4). Available from:
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6874/11/4
from:http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/797295 overview#showall
2011.
56
57
Prawirohardjo; 2011.
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6874/14/20
16. (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world
factbook/geos/id.html),
18. Berek, Jonathan S. Berek & Novak’s Gynecology 15th ed. Lippincott
20. Snell RS. Anatomi Klinis: Berdasarkan Sistem. Jakarta: EGC; 2012.
21. Cunningham FG, Leveno KJ, Bloom SL, Spong CY, Dashe JS,
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:
23. Drake RL, Vogl AW, Mitchell AWM, Gray’s Anatomy for Students,
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
http://pennstatehershey.adam.com/content.aspx?productId=117&pid=1
&gid=001508
26. Marta, KF. Hubungan Antara Prolaps Organ Panggul dengan Ukuran
34. Schorge JO, Schaffer JI, Halvorson LM, Hoffman BL, Bradshaw KD,
Companies; 2008.
from: http://www.gynla.com/expertise/pelvic-prolapse-treatment.php
Available from:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001508.htm
from: http://www.patient.co.uk/diagram/uterus-showing-prolapse-
diagram
45. Quiroz LH, Munoz A, Shippey SH, Gutman RE, Handa VL. “Vaginal
47. Scott J, Disaia Pj, Hammond CB, Spellacy N, Gordon JD. 2002. Buku
Analisis Univariat
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Semarang 42 75.0 75.0 75.0
Luar Semarang 14 25.0 25.0 100.0
Total 56 100.0 100.0
Pekerjaan
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Bekerja 11 19.6 19.6 19.6
Tidak bekerja 45 80.4 80.4 100.0
Total 56 100.0 100.0
Pendidikan
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Dasar 24 42.9 42.9 42.9
Menengah/Tinggi 32 57.1 57.1 100.0
Total 56 100.0 100.0
Status perkawinan
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Kawin 55 98.2 98.2 98.2
Tidak kawin 1 1.8 1.8 100.0
Total 56 100.0 100.0
Paritas
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid >= 50 tahun 45 80.4 80.4 80.4
< 50 tahun 11 19.6 19.6 100.0
Total 56 100.0 100.0
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Menopause 47 83.9 83.9 83.9
Belum 9 16.1 16.1 100.0
Total 56 100.0 100.0
BMI
Tindakan
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Crosstabs
1. Paritas * Diagnosis Prolaps Uteri
Crosstab
Diagnosis PU Total
Paritas Count 41 5 46
Count 1 9 10
Chi-Square Tests
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
Crosstab
Diagnosis PU
Grade III - IV Grade I - II Total
Usia >= 50 tahun Count 41 4 45
Expected Count 33.8 11.3 45.0
% within Diagnosis PU 97.6% 28.6% 80.4%
% of Total 73.2% 7.1% 80.4%
< 50 tahun Count 1 10 11
Expected Count 8.3 2.8 11.0
% within Diagnosis PU 2.4% 71.4% 19.6%
% of Total 1.8% 17.9% 19.6%
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
Risk Estimate
95% Confidence
Interval
Value Lower Upper
Odds Ratio for Usia (>=
102.500 10.300 1020.058
50 tahun / < 50 tahun)
For cohort Diagnosis
10.022 1.543 65.091
PU = Grade III - IV
For cohort Diagnosis
.098 .038 .254
PU = Grade I - II
N of Valid Cases 56
69
Crosstab
Diagnosis PU
Grade III - IV Grade I - II Total
Riwayat Menopause Count 41 6 47
haid Expected Count 35.3 11.8 47.0
% within Diagnosis PU 97.6% 42.9% 83.9%
% of Total 73.2% 10.7% 83.9%
Belum Count 1 8 9
Expected Count 6.8 2.3 9.0
% within Diagnosis PU 2.4% 57.1% 16.1%
% of Total 1.8% 14.3% 16.1%
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
Risk Estimate
95% Confidence
Interval
Value Lower Upper
Odds Ratio for Riwayat
haid (Menopause / 54.667 5.771 517.865
Belum)
For cohort Diagnosis
7.851 1.233 49.987
PU = Grade III - IV
For cohort Diagnosis
.144 .066 .314
PU = Grade I - II
N of Valid Cases 56
70
Crosstab
Diagnosis PU
Grade III - IV Grade I - II Total
BMI >= 23 Count 21 6 27
Expected Count 20.3 6.8 27.0
% within Diagnosis PU 50.0% 42.9% 48.2%
% of Total 37.5% 10.7% 48.2%
< 23 Count 21 8 29
Expected Count 21.8 7.3 29.0
% within Diagnosis PU 50.0% 57.1% 51.8%
% of Total 37.5% 14.3% 51.8%
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
Risk Estimate
95% Confidence
Interval
Value Lower Upper
Odds Ratio for BMI
1.333 .394 4.512
(> = 23 / < 23)
For cohort Diagnosis
1.074 .794 1.453
PU = Grade III - IV
For cohort Diagnosis
.806 .321 2.021
PU = Grade I - II
N of Valid Cases 56
71
Logistic Regression
IDENTITAS MAHASISWA
NIM : 22010111140197
E-mail : baiqcipta@ymail.com