ArticleJournal of patient-reported outcomes2020
Validation of a menstrual pictogram and a daily bleeding diary for assessment of uterine fibroid treatment efficacy in clinical studies.
Article in Journal of patient-reported outcomes, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Efficacy and Safety of Vilaprisan in the Treatment of Uterine Fibroids: Data from ASTEROID 5, a Phase 3 Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Navigating the future landscape of uterine fibroid research: a comprehensive summary of patient-centered outcome measures and implications.BMC women's health · 2025Article
- Association between Patients' Self-Judgement, Coagulated Menstrual Blood, and Menorrhagia: Results from a Questionnaire Survey and Blood Test Analysis.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Article
- Clinical perspectives on the menstrual pictogram for the assessment of heavy menstrual bleeding.Human reproduction open · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo evaluate the psychometric and measurement properties of two patient-reported outcome instruments, the menstrual pictogram superabsorbent polymer-containing version 3 (MP SAP-c v3) and Uterine Fibroid Daily Bleeding Diary (UF-DBD). Test-retest reliability, criterion, construct validity, responsiveness, missingness and comparability of the MP SAP-c v3 and UF-DBD versus the alkaline hematin (AH) method and a patient global impression of severity (PGI-S) were analyzed in post hoc trial analyses.
resultsAnalyses were based on data from up to 756 patients. The full range of MP SAP-c v3 and UF-DBD response options were used, with score distributions reflecting the cyclic character of the disease. Test-retest reliability of MP SAP-c v3 and UF-DBD scores was supported by acceptable intraclass correlation coefficients when stability was defined by the AH method and Patient Global Impression of Severity (PGI-S) scores (0.80-0.96 and 0.42-0.94, respectively). MP SAP-c v3 and UF-DBD scores demonstrated strong and moderate-to-strong correlations with menstrual blood loss assessed by the AH method. Scores increased in monotonic fashion, with greater disease severities, defined by the AH method and PGI-S scores; differences between groups were mostly statistically significant (P < 0.05). MP SAP-c v3 and UF-DBD were sensitive to changes in disease severity, defined by the AH method and PGI-S. MP SAP-c v3 and UF-DBD showed a lower frequency of missing patient data versus the AH method, and good agreement with the AH method.
conclusionsThis evidence supports the use of the MP SAP-c v3 and UF-DBD to assess clinical efficacy endpoints in UF phase III studies replacing the AH method.
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.