Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34149019›Full record

Trial reportFemale pelvic medicine & reconstructive surgery2021

Validation of a Spanish Version of the Prolapse and Incontinence Knowledge Questionnaire.

Keila S Muñiz, Koraima Cedeño, Kathryn A Carson, Prerna R Pandya, Jacqueline Kikuchi, Danielle Patterson, Joan Blomquist, Stephanie Jacobs, Grace Chen Chi Chiung

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Female pelvic medicine & reconstructive surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Validation of the Hungarian version of the Prolapse and Incontinence Knowledge Questionnaire (PIKQ).European journal of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive biology: X · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Keila S MuñizFrom the Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.
Koraima CedeñoUniversidad Iberoamericana, Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic.
Kathryn A Carson
Prerna R PandyaFrom the Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.
Jacqueline KikuchiFrom the Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.
Danielle PattersonFrom the Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.
Joan BlomquistDepartment of Gynecology, Greater Baltimore Medical Center, Baltimore, MD.
Stephanie JacobsDepartment of Gynecology, Greater Baltimore Medical Center, Baltimore, MD.
Grace Chen Chi ChiungFrom the Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.

Funding

QAQC Johns Hopkins Institute for Clinical and Translational ResearchUL1TR003098 · NCATS · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI FORD, DANIEL ERNEST · 2019 to 2023
$57.7M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR003098
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe objective of this study was to validate a Spanish version of the Prolapse and Incontinence Knowledge Questionnaire (PIKQ).

methodsValidation and reliability testing of the Spanish version of the PIKQ was conducted in 2 phases. In the first phase, a translation-back-translation method by 6 bilingual researchers was utilized to generate a final Spanish translation. In the second phase, bilingual women were randomized to complete the Spanish or English version first, followed by the alternate language. Agreement between individual items from English and Spanish versions was assessed by percent agreement and κ statistics. Intraclass correlation coefficients compared overall PIKQ scores and pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and urinary incontinence (UI) subscores. To establish test-retest reliability, we calculated Pearson correlation coefficients. In order to have a precision of 10% for 90% agreement, so that the lower 95% confidence interval would not be less than 80% agreement, 50 bilingual participants were required.

resultsFifty-seven bilingual women were randomized and completed both versions of the PIKQ. Individual items showed 74%-97% agreement, good to excellent agreement (κ = 0.6-0.89) for 9 items and moderate agreement (κ = 0.4-0.59) for 14 items between English and Spanish PIKQ versions. Intraclass correlation coefficients of the overall score and POP and UI subscores showed excellent agreement (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.81-0.91). Pearson correlation coefficients between initial and repeat Spanish scores were high: overall (r = 0.87) and for POP (r = 0.81) and UI subscores (r = 0.77).

conclusionsA valid and reliable Spanish version of the PIKQ has been developed to assess patient knowledge about UI and POP.

Indexed as

Pelvic Organ ProlapseUrinary IncontinenceFemaleHumansLanguageReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID34149019
PMCPMC8550994

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.