Trial reportInternational urogynecology journal2021
A randomized comparison of training programs using a pelvic model designed to enhance pelvic floor examination in patients presenting with chronic pelvic pain.
Trial report in International urogynecology journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
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 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPelvic floor myalgia is a common cause and contributor to chronic pelvic pain [Neurourol Urodyn 4:984-1008 (2017)]. The purpose of this study was to compare in-person versus video-based teaching methods of a comprehensive assessment of the pelvic floor musculature on a pelvic model.
methodsA randomized controlled trial of 46 participants was conducted. The participants were randomized into two groups. Both groups were taught by the same pelvic floor physiotherapist using two different teaching methods on a pelvic model. Group 1 watched an instructional video, whereas group 2 had in-person training. Both groups underwent pre- and post-training assessments consisting of a written examination and an Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE). Primary outcome measure was the change in participants' pre- and post-training assessment scores. Secondary outcome measures were perceived changes in both participants' comfort level in performing pelvic floor examination and applicability of the training program to clinical practice.
resultsThere was no statistically significant difference between the teaching methods in the degree of improvement of the participants' mean written assessment scores (p = 0.58), OSCE scores (p = 0.15), and perceived comfort level (p = 0.19). Participants' mean pre- and post-assessment scores improved significantly (p < 0.001). Participants reported the training program to be applicable towards their clinical practice.
conclusionsThis study demonstrates that learners' assessment of pelvic floor musculature can be enhanced using varied teaching methods on a pelvic model.
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.