ArticleFemale pelvic medicine & reconstructive surgery2020
Deciding Our Future: Consensus Conference Summary Report.
Article in Female pelvic medicine & reconstructive surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Patient-reported outcomes in pelvic organ prolapse repair: the missing information needed to inform our understanding of what matters most to patients.Gynecology and pelvic medicine · 2024Article
- International urogynecological consultation chapter 4.1: definition of outcomes for pelvic organ prolapse surgery.International urogynecology journal · 2023Review
- AUGS-PERFORM: A New Patient-Reported Outcome Measure to Assess Quality of Prolapse Care.Female pelvic medicine & reconstructive surgery · 2022Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThere are few quality measures that allow for optimization of care for pelvic organ prolapse (POP). In coordination with the American Urogynecologic Society (AUGS), a prior group agreed upon health care provider-reported data elements that are important for large-scale quality measurement. The primary objective was to review existing patient-reported outcome (PRO) measurement tools for POP and consider where improvements are needed for inclusion in a quality measurement tool. A secondary objective was to discuss enhanced strategies to improve the quality of care for women with mesh complications.
methodsThe AUGS Scientific Committee convened a 1-day meeting titled "Deciding our Future: Consensus Conference on Prolapse Outcomes and Best Practices for Mesh Complications." Speakers discussed the current state of POP outcome measurement and meaningful ways of measuring and improving quality. Furthermore, past and future work for standardization of care regarding mesh complications was discussed.
resultsConference participants included invited speakers, representatives from AUGS and partner societies, 5 patient representatives from the AUGS Patient Advisory Committee, and 38 registered participants from academic institutions, community practices, and industry. Participants developed a roadmap for incorporating PROs into a national POP quality improvement registry. Participants also discussed important gaps in our knowledge of treatment of mesh complications and previewed proposed terminology and treatment algorithms.
conclusionsUsing appropriate methodology, existing PRO measurement tools can be collapsed into one concise tool for POP quality measurement. Over the next year, work will continue toward this goal. Proposed updates to mesh terminology and treatment algorithms will be published separately.
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.