Trial reportInternational urogynecology journal2015
The FIGO assessment scoring system (FASS): a new holistic classification tool to assess women with pelvic floor dysfunction: validity and reliability.
Trial report in International urogynecology journal, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Use in Women With Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Systematic Review.Obstetrics and gynecology · 2023Pooled it
- Validation of the Sinhala translations of the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory and the Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire in a Sri Lankan population.International urogynecology journal · 2021Article
- Transcultural translation and validation of the FIGO Assessment Scoring System (FASS) to Portuguese language.International urogynecology journal · 2019Article
- Use of botulinum toxin for chronic pelvic pain.Women's health (London, England) · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 6 institutions in 6 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisThe aim of our study was to assess the interobserver and intraobserver reliability as well as the content and construct validity of the FIGO prolapse assessment scoring system (FASS).
methodsWomen with and without (controls) symptoms of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) attending gynaecology outpatient clinics in four different countries were recruited prospectively. Each woman was assessed using the FASS which included: (1) physical examination findings designated with the letter P; (2) presence of symptoms of prolapse, urinary and bowel symptoms designated with the letter S; and (3) assessment of degree of bother designated with the letter B. A scoring system was also developed. For interobserver reliability women were examined by two separate examiners using the FASS. For intraobserver reliability the FASS was repeated by the same examiner within 2 weeks. The interclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was also calculated to assess limits of agreements. Validity was assessed by comparing the FASS scores between symptomatic and asymptomatic women using the Mann-Whitney U test (p value <0.001).
resultsA total of 177 women (98 symptomatic and 79 controls) were recruited. Intraobserver reliability had ICCs between 0.716 and 1. Interobserver reliability had ICCs between 0.795 and 0.909. Domain and total scores were significantly different between symptomatic and asymptomatic women (p < 0.001, Mann-Whitney U test). There was a good correlation between FASS P scores and POP-Q scores (rho 0.763, p < 0.001).
conclusionsThe FIGO prolapse assessment scoring system has good intraobserver and interobserver agreement and has demonstrated both content and construct validity.
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.