ArticleTechniques in coloproctology2020
How is your proctology patient really doing? Outcome measurement in proctology: development, design and validation study of the Proctoprom.
Article in Techniques in coloproctology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pelvic floor physical therapy in patients with chronic anal fissure: long-term follow-up of a randomized controlled trial.International journal of colorectal disease · 2023Trial
- Pelvic floor physical therapy in patients with chronic anal fissure: a randomized controlled trial.Techniques in coloproctology · 2022Trial
- Article
- Ruiyun procedure for hemorrhoids versus tissue-selective therapy stapler for grade II-III hemorrhoids: an exploratory retrospective comparative study.BMC surgery · 2026Article
- Mid- and long-term functional outcomes of advancement flap for cryptoglandular perianal fistulas.Techniques in coloproctology · 2025Article
- Comparison of Pudendal Nerve Block and Spinal Anesthesia in Proctological Surgeries: Efficacy, Safety, and Patient Outcomes.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Observational
- Quality of life in patients with hemorrhoidal disease.Surgery open science · 2023Article
- Article
- Hemorrhoidectomy versus rubber band ligation in grade III hemorrhoidal disease: a large retrospective cohort study with long-term follow-up.Annals of coloproctology · 2022Article
- Pelvic floor physical therapy in the treatment of chronic anal fissure (PAF-study): Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2021Article
- Making Use of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Haemorrhoidal Disease in Clinical Practice: A Perspective.Frontiers in surgery · 2021Article
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 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of the present study was to develop and evaluate the reliability and validity of proctology patient-reported outcome measurements (PROM): Proctoprom.
methodsDevelopment of the Proctoprom was based on interview rounds with experts (n = 4) and patients (n = 19) in open informal interview rounds regarding content and form. Once consensus was achieved on five items, data were collected between July 2014 and August 2016 from 991 patients recruited consecutively in a specialized proctology center. Reliability, construct validity and responsiveness of the PROM were determined through exploratory factor analysis, test-retest analysis and anchor-based hypothesis testing. We also estimated discriminant validity, standard error of measurement (SEM), minimal detectable change (MDC95%) and minimal clinically important difference (MCID).
resultsThe five items loaded on one factor that reflected good internal consistency (Cronbach's α 0.81). Test-retest analysis showed good reliability with intraclass correlation of 0.81. Construct validity measurement resulted in AUCs of 0.85 and 0.90. Responsiveness measurement resulted in AUCs of > 0.76 for both hypotheses. SEM was estimated at 3.0 points and MDC at 4.8 points. We estimated an MCID of 10 points.
conclusionsProctoprom is a valid and reliable tool that is responsive to change and that meets consensus-based standards for the selection of health measurement instruments. It can be used to evaluate disease burden and effect of treatment in all adult proctology patients regardless of their proctologic diagnosis.
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.