ArticleCurrent urology reports2015
The future of research in female pelvic medicine.
Article in Current urology reports, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery (FPMRS) was recently recognized as a subspecialty by the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS). FPMRS treats female pelvic disorders (FPD) including pelvic organ prolapse (POP), urinary incontinence (UI), fecal incontinence (FI), lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), lower urinary tract infections (UTI), pelvic pain, and female sexual dysfunction (FSD). These conditions affect large numbers of individuals, resulting in significant patient, societal, medical, and financial burdens. Given that treatments utilize both medical and surgical approaches, areas of research in FPD necessarily cover a gamut of topics, ranging from mechanistically driven basic science research to randomized controlled trials. While basic science research is slow to impact clinical care, transformational changes in a field occur through basic investigations. On the other hand, clinical research yields incremental changes to clinical care. Basic research intends to change understanding whereas clinical research intends to change practice. However, the best approach is to incorporate both basic and clinical research into a translational program which makes new discoveries and effects positive changes to clinical practice. This review examines current research in FPD, with focus on translational potential, and ponders the future of FPD research. With a goal of improving the care and outcomes in patients with FPD, a strategic collaboration of stakeholders (patients, advocacy groups, physicians, researchers, professional medical associations, legislators, governmental biomedical research agencies, pharmaceutical companies, and medical device companies) is an absolute requirement in order to generate funding needed for FPD translational research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25604652What 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.