ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2022
Validation of the Thai version of the Prolapse and Incontinence Knowledge Questionnaire (PIKQ).
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 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Educational Animation Video Improves Knowledge and Health-Seeking Behavior in Women With Urinary Incontinence: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Neurourology and urodynamics · 2026Trial
- eHealth educational intervention: effects of an online video program in prevention of the pelvic women's health-a non-randomized experimental study.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2025Trial
- Iranian Translation of the Prolapse and Incontinence Knowledge Questionnaire: Validity and Reliability.International urogynecology journal · 2026Article
- The knowledge-symptom paradox in urinary incontinence: a health literacy and equity challenge in urban Southeast Asia.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Assessing the Knowledge and Awareness of Urinary Incontinence Among Urogynecology Clinic Patients in Jordan: A Cross-Sectional Study.Research and reports in urology · 2026Article
- Knowledge and Prevalence of Urinary Incontinence Among Third-Trimester Pregnant Women.International urogynecology journal · 2025Article
- Validation of the Hungarian version of the Prolapse and Incontinence Knowledge Questionnaire (PIKQ).European journal of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive biology: X · 2024Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisThe Prolapse and Incontinence Knowledge Questionnaire (PIKQ) was developed and validated to assess women's knowledge regarding etiology, diagnosis and treatment of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and urinary incontinence (UI). We aimed to translate and validate a Thai version of the PIKQ to use as a tool to evaluate knowledge of POP and UI among Thai-speaking women.
methodsThe English PIKQ, which comprises the PIKQ-POP and PIKQ-UI sections, was translated into Thai. Psychometric properties of the final version of the Thai PIKQ were tested for content validity, construct validity, internal consistency and test-retest reliability among 168 women attending a gynecology clinic and 150 nurses.
resultsRegarding content validity of the final Thai PIKQ, the number of missing items was 0. Participants in the nurse group were more likely than those in the patient group to select the correct answer for all items for the POP scale and UI scale (P < 0.001). For internal consistency testing, Cronbach's alpha coefficient was 0.745 for the PIKQ-POP and 0.754 for the PIKQ-UI scales, suggesting that the items had relatively high internal consistency. The item-total correlation values ranged from 0.204 to 0.539, showing an adequate correlation of each item with the scale overall. The correlation coefficients between the test and retest for PIKQ-POP and PIKQ-UI were 0.685 and 0.735, respectively (P < 0.001).
conclusionsThe Thai PIKQ is a simple instrument which shows good validity and high reliability and could be a useful tool for assessing knowledge regarding POP and UI in clinical practice.
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.