ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2016
Knowledge of pelvic organ prolapse in patients and their information-seeking preferences: comparing Vienna and Moscow.
Article in International urogynecology journal, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Validation of the Arabic Linguistic Version of the Prolapse and Incontinence Knowledge Questionnaire.International urogynecology journal · 2024Article
- Validation of the hebrew version of the prolapse and incontinence knowledge questionnaire (PIKQ) during pregnancy.International urogynecology journal · 2022Article
- Pelvic organ prolapse patients' attitudes and preferences regarding their uterus: comparing German- and Russian-speaking women.International urogynecology journal · 2019Article
- Information on the Internet Regarding Orthognathic Surgery in Turkey: Is It an Adequate Guide for Potential Patients?Turkish journal of orthodontics · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisWe hypothesized that knowledge of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and patient information-seeking preferences are the same in the two capital cities.
methodsFirst-visit patients were recruited at tertiary referral urogynaecological units in Vienna (137) and in Moscow (112). A 16-item scale was used to assess the patient knowledge of POP. The 16 items comprised 12 specific items taken from the Prolapse and Incontinence Knowledge Questionnaire (PIKQ) and four added items. The preliminary psychometric assessment of the knowledge scales in German and Russian was performed in the Vienna and in Moscow centres.
resultsThe mean total knowledge scores in patients in Vienna and in Moscow were not significantly different: 9.7 ± 3.5 vs. 9.8 ± 2.9 (p = 0.92). Patients in Vienna were more likely to answer questions about the pathogenesis of POP correctly. Patients in Moscow achieved higher scores for items assessing knowledge about the diagnosis of POP. Women in the two study groups equally preferred to obtain information about POP from medical specialists (72 % and 82 %; p = 0.61), followed by friends and family for patients in Vienna (25 %), and the internet for patients in Moscow (23 %). Patients in Vienna were more likely to use printed sources (18 % and 7 %; p = 0.001) than patients in Moscow.
conclusionsThe mean level of knowledge of POP did not differ between patients in Vienna and patients in Moscow. The differences between the specific knowledge domains might be explained by different cultural preferences for seeking health information and by the range of the information sources available.
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.