ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2013
Quality-of-care indicators for pelvic organ prolapse: development of an infrastructure for quality assessment.
Article in International urogynecology journal, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Management of apical pelvic organ prolapse.Current urology reports · 2015Pooled it
- Ligament shortening compared to vaginal colpopexy at the time of hysterectomy for pelvic organ prolapse.International urogynecology journal · 2017Article
- Measuring the quality of care provided to women with pelvic organ prolapse.American journal of obstetrics and gynecology · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisA paucity of data exists addressing the quality of care provided to women with pelvic organ prolapse (POP). We sought to develop a means of measuring this quality through the development of quality-of-care indicators (QIs).
methodsQIs were modeled after those previously described in the Assessing the Care of Vulnerable Elders (ACOVE) project. The indicators were then presented to a panel of nine experts. Using the RAND Appropriateness Method, we analyzed each indicator's preliminary rankings. A forum was then held in which each indicator was thoroughly discussed by the panelists as a group, after which panelists individually re-rated the indicators. QIs with median scores of at least 7 were considered valid.
resultsQIs were developed that addressed screening, diagnosis, work-up, and both nonsurgical and surgical management. Areas of controversy included whether screening should be performed to identify prolapse, whether pessary users should undergo a vaginal examination by a health professional every 6 months versus annually, and whether a colpocleisis should be offered to older women planning to undergo surgery for POP. Fourteen out of 21 potential indicators were rated as valid for pelvic organ prolapse (median score ≥7).
conclusionWe developed and rated 14 potential quality indicators for the care of women with POP. Once these QIs are tested for feasibility they can be used on a larger scale to measure and compare the care provided to women with prolapse in different clinical settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.