ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2022
Do patients discharged from the physiotherapy-led pelvic health clinic re-present to the urogynaecology service?
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 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.
- Point of care ultrasound in pelvic health: scope of practice, education and governance for physiotherapists.International urogynecology journal · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisThe physiotherapy-led pelvic health clinic (PLPHC) is an advanced practice clinic that manages women from the urogynaecology waitlist with pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and/or urinary incontinence (UI) at Gold Coast Health, Australia. This study was aimed at determining re-referral rates and reasons for re-presentation of women previously managed and discharged from the PLPHC. We hypothesised that there would be low representation rates for the same condition within 12 months of discharge.
methodsA retrospective audit was undertaken of all (n = 209) patients discharged between 1 January and 31 December 2017. Re-presentation rates and reasons for re-referral for women seen in the PLPHC and discharged without requiring urogynaecology medical specialist review were analysed and descriptive analysis performed.
resultOf the 209 patients, 67 were referred to, or had, urogynaecology medical specialist review after their initial physiotherapy care and were removed from further analysis. Of the remaining 142 patients, who were initially managed by physiotherapy only, 10 (7.1%) women were re-referred to specialist medical outpatient gynaecology and urology out-patient departments, for management of a different diagnosis, and 10 (7.1%) for their original diagnoses, within 12 months of discharge. Of the latter, 1 patient required further physiotherapy and urogynaecologist management; 7 patients required ongoing pessary management; 1 patient continued with urologist medical management; and 1 failed to attend.
conclusionThis study presents novel data on low re-presentation rates in the 12 months following discharge for patients with POP or UI managed in a PLPHC; and provides further support for advanced scope of practice physiotherapy gynaecological service models.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34287655What 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.