Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30088031›Full record

ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2019

The minimal important difference of the Australian Pelvic Floor Questionnaire.

Kaven Baessler, Alexandra Mowat, Christopher F Maher

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International urogynecology journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07170007 (Physiotherapeutic Protocol Compared to Usual Care in the Treatment of Postpartum Primiparas After Perineal Trauma), which is not on this map. Cited by 20 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT07170007 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

Physiotherapeutic Protocol Compared to Usual Care in the Treatment of Postpartum Primiparas After Perineal Trauma: A Type 1 Hybrid Effectiveness-Implementation Randomized Controlled Trial With Economic Evaluation

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of Sao PauloRan2025 to 2029Enrolled82ConditionsEpisiotomy, Lacerations Perineal, Obstetric Anal Sphincter Injury, Perineal InjuryArmsPhysiotherapeutic protocol, Usual maternity care
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Sexual, bladder and bowel function following different minimally invasive techniques of radical hysterectomy in patients with early-stage cervical cancer.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2021
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Kaven BaesslerPelvic Floor Centre Franziskus and St Joseph Hospitals, Budapester Strasse 15-17, 12787, Berlin, Germany. kaven.baessler@franziskus-berlin.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6973-4569
Alexandra MowatGreenslopes Private Hospital and University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Christopher F MaherRoyal Brisbane & Women's, Wesley and Mater Hospitals Brisbane, Suite 86, Sandford Jackson Building, 30 Chasely Street, Auchenflower, QLD, 4066, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introduction and hypothesisThe aim of this study was to establish the minimal important difference (MID) of the Australian Pelvic Floor Questionnaire (APFQ) in women undergoing surgery for stress urinary incontinence or symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse. A further aim was to estimate dysfunction scores dependent on the bothersomeness in a community cohort.

methodsThe APFQ was completed before and 6 weeks after pelvic floor surgery by 183 women (n = 80 suburethral tape insertion; n = 103 laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy). Distribution and anchor-based methods were used to establish the effect size, standardised response mean and MID (calculated as the difference between women who stated no change or a little better in the Patient Global Impression of Improvement [PGI-I]). In a community cohort of 470 women aged 42-80 years, the APFQ was analysed according to disclosed bothersomeness.

resultsFor the suburethral tape group, the effect size in the bladder domain was 1.5 and the PGI-I-based MID 1.3. For the POP surgery, group the effect size in the prolapse domain was calculated at 2.2 and the PGI-I-based MID at 1.0. The domain scores for women who declared no bother were significantly different from those who were a little bothered (bladder domain 2.2 vs 4.0, bowel 0.6 vs 1.7, POP 0.1 vs 3.2, sex 1.8 vs 3.0) with wide variations.

conclusionsThe MID of the APFQ ranged from 1.0 to 1.3 in the domains after POP or continence surgery respectively. This is corroborated by the differences in domain scores from community-based women who were bothered versus not bothered by pelvic floor symptoms.

Indexed as

Surveys and QuestionnairesAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAustraliaFemaleHumansMiddle AgedPelvic Floor DisordersPelvic Organ ProlapseUrinary IncontinenceMinimal important differencePelvic floor dysfunctionPelvic floor questionnairePelvic floor surgery

Identifiers

PMID30088031

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.