ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2019
Transcultural translation and validation of the FIGO Assessment Scoring System (FASS) to Portuguese language.
Article in International urogynecology journal, 2019. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisOur aim was to validate the Brazilian Portuguese version of the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) Assessment Scoring System (FASS) to identify and quantify signs and symptoms related to pelvic floor dysfunction.
methodsOne hundred and seventy-nine women aged 18-82 (47.68 ± 14.42) years participated in this validation study. Collected data included a sociodemographic and clinical questionnaire, application of the FASS, and physical examination using the Pelvic Prgan Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) system. The translation and cross-cultural adaptation were performed following the international methodology. The psychometric properties tested were criterion validity, construct validity, stability, and reliability. For this purpose, the comparison with POP-Q findings and between symptomatic and asymptomatic patients, test-retest and internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) were used, respectively. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated to assess the level of agreement between evaluations (inter- and intraobservers). P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
resultsThe calculated Cronbach's alpha coefficient was 0.76, indicating strong reliability for the validation sample. Symptomatic women had different scores on all FASS items as well as total score when compared with asymptomatic women (p < 0.001). Intraobserver coefficient ranged from 0.91 (urinary symptoms) to 0.98 (FASS total score), indicating excellent concordance level in all items. Interobserver coefficient ranged from 0.47 (intestinal symptoms) to 0.90 (FASS total score), indicating moderate to excellent correlation.
conclusionsThe psychometric properties tested in the FASS Portuguese version proved to be a valid and reliable for evaluating signs and symptoms related to pelvic floor function in Brazilian women.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30357470What 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.