ArticleJournal of women's health (2002)2017
Assessing Abnormal Uterine Bleeding: Are Physicians Taking a Meaningful Clinical History?
Article in Journal of women's health (2002), 2017. 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, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Barriers to seeking consultation for abnormal uterine bleeding: systematic review of qualitative research.BMC women's health · 2020Pooled it
- Linguistic Validation of a British-English Version of the SAMANTA Questionnaire and HMB-VAS Tool: A Step Toward Improved Diagnosis of Heavy Menstrual Bleeding.Women's health reports (New Rochelle, N.Y.) · 2024Article
- Assessing a cut-off point for the diagnosis of abnormal uterine bleeding using the Menstrual Bleeding Questionnaire (MBQ): a validation and cultural translation study with Brazilian women.Sao Paulo medical journal = Revista paulista de medicina · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionWomen with abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) report significant reductions in quality of life (QOL), which can be attributed in many cases to the fear of embarrassing episodes of bleeding. We performed this study to determine whether or not during clinical encounters physicians addressed the impact of AUB on patient-reported QOL. MATERIALS AND
methodsBetween October 2008 and May 2009, we conducted a cross-sectional study of members of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Surveys were distributed using a mixed method (web- and mail-based) and included questions about physician characteristics and types of questions used when obtaining a clinical history from a patient with AUB. We calculated the proportion of physicians who endorsed asking each type of clinical question with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
resultsFour hundred seventeen questionnaires were returned (52%). Ninety-nine percent (95% CI 98.4%-99.9%) reported always asking a bleeding heaviness question, 87.2% (95% CI 83.2%-90.5%) reported always asking a QOL question, and 17.5% (95% CI 13.6%-21.9%) reported always asking a mood associated with bleeding question. Seventy-eight percent specifically asked patients about bleeding through their clothes, and 55% asked about changing social plans because of bleeding. Only 18% endorsed that asking about QOL was most essential for the evaluation of women with AUB. No physician characteristics such as years since completing residency, geography, or gender were associated with how commonly providers reported asking questions regarding impact of bleeding on QOL.
conclusionsPhysicians may not be optimizing patient-provider interactions during menstrual history taking with patients with AUB by failing to assess impact of AUB on QOL in a way that is meaningful to patients.
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.