ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2022
What do female university students know about pelvic floor disorders? A cross-sectional survey.
Article in International urogynecology journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Influence of a Structured Teaching on Targeted Pelvic Floor Muscle Contraction Ability in Pregnant Women: The pelviTrust Trial.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- A Scoping Review of Quantitative Assessments of Women's Bladder Health Knowledge, Attitudes, and Beliefs.Journal of women's health (2002) · 2025Article
- Pregnant Women's Knowledge of Pelvic Floor and Related Dysfunctions: A Scoping Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisPelvic floor dysfunction (PFD) is common in women but few seek medical attention. Poor recognition of the condition as pathological and unawareness of treatments may account for low consultation rates.
methodsThis cross-sectional study was based on an online survey that was responded to in February and March 2020 by 768 female university students. Knowledge of PFD was assessed using the Prolapse and Incontinence Knowledge Questionnaire (PIKQ). Descriptive and inferential analyses were performed using IBM-SPSS (V26.0).
resultsRespondents had poor knowledge of PFD and especially of pelvic organ prolapse. Health science students (n = 531; 69.1%) obtained significantly higher scores (p < 0.001) than other students (n = 237; 30.9%). Those who had received information on how to perform pelvic floor muscle training were more likely to score higher than those who had not received previous information.
conclusionsWhile health science students have better knowledge of PFD than other students, university students in general are little aware of PFD. Most students considered the issue of PFD to be important and wanted more information. Our findings may be useful in planning strategies to raise women's awareness of PFD and its prevention and treatment.
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.