ArticleCMAJ open
Pelvic floor disorders in women who consult primary care clinics: development and validation of case definitions using primary care electronic medical records.
Article in CMAJ open. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic capabilities of transperineal ultrasound (TPUS) to evaluate anal sphincter defect post obstetric anal sphincter injury (OASIS)? A systematic review.Journal of ultrasound · 2023Pooled it
- Development and validation of a case definition for problematic menopause in primary care electronic medical records.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo date, there has been no validated method to identify cases of pelvic floor disorders in primary care electronic medical record (EMR) data. We aimed to develop and validate symptom-based case definitions for urinary incontinence, fecal incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse in women, for use in primary care epidemiologic or clinical research.
methodsOur retrospective study used EMR data from the Southern Alberta Primary Care Research Network (SAPCReN) and the Canadian Primary Care Sentinel Surveillance Network (CPCSSN) in southern Alberta. Trained researchers remotely reviewed a random sample of EMR charts of women aged 18 years or older from 6 rural and urban clinics to validate case definitions for urinary incontinence, fecal incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse. We calculated sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV), and estimated SAPCReN prevalence as appropriate.
resultsCharts of 900 women were included. Sensitivity was 81.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] 75.1-87.2) for urinary incontinence, 61.2% (95% CI 46.2-74.5) for fecal incontinence, and 51.8% (95% CI 40.6-62.8) for pelvic organ prolapse. Corresponding specificity values were 71.9% (95% CI 68.4-75.1), 99.2% (95% CI 98.2-99.6) and 98.8% (95% CI 97.7-99.4), PPVs 40.6% (95% CI 35.4-46.0), 81.1% (95% CI 64.3-91.4) and 81.1% (95% CI 67.6-90.1), and NPVs 94.4% (95% CI 92.1-96.1), 97.8% (95% CI 96.5-98.6) and 95.3% (95% CI 93.6-96.6). The SAPCReN-observed prevalence for urinary incontinence was 29.7% (95% CI 29.3-30.0), but the adjusted prevalence was 2.97%.
interpretationThe case definition for urinary incontinence met our standard for validity (sensitivity and specificity > 70%), and the case definitions for fecal incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse had PPVs greater than 80%. The urinary incontinence definition may be used in epidemiologic research, and those for fecal incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse may be used in quality-improvement studies or creation of disease registries. Our symptom-based case definitions could also be adapted for research in other EMR settings.
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.