Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32097188›Full record

ArticleFemale pelvic medicine & reconstructive surgery2020

Deciding Our Future: Consensus Conference Summary Report.

Nazema Y Siddiqui, Gena C Dunivan, Christopher J Chermansky, Catherine S Bradley, American Urogynecologic Society (AUGS) Scientific Committee

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. 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

5 authors.

Nazema Y SiddiquiFrom the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University, Durham, NC.
Gena C DunivanDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM.
Christopher J ChermanskyDepartment of Urology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA.
Catherine S BradleyDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Carver College of Medicine, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA.
American Urogynecologic Society (AUGS) Scientific Committee

Funding

Conference on Prolapse Outcome MeasurementR13HD097995 · NICHD · AMERICAN UROGYNECOLOGIC SOCIETY · PI SIDDIQUI, NAZEMA Y · 2019 to 2019
$6k
NICHD NIH HHS R13 HD097995
6 · The paper itself

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

ConsensusConsensus Statements as TopicFemaleGynecologyHumansPelvic Organ ProlapseSocieties, MedicalSurgical MeshWomen's Health

Identifiers

PMID32097188
PMCPMC7080322

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.