ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2022
Analysis of the Structural Characteristics and Psychometric Properties of the Pelvic Floor Bother Questionnaire (PFBQ): A Systematic Review.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- A systematic review of the clinical treatment of patients with fecal incontinence by artificial anal sphincter.Techniques in coloproctology · 2024Pooled it
- Health Deficits Among People Experiencing Homelessness in an Australian Capital City: An Observational Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Observational
- Determining the levels of pelvic floor disorders in women diagnosed with urinary incontinence: a mix-method study.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
- Pre- versus Post-Menopausal Onset of Overactive Bladder and the Response to Vaginal Estrogen Therapy: A Prospective Study.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Pelvic Floor Bother Questionnaire is a validated and reliable questionnaire that studies the presence and degree of pelvic floor discomfort, providing a global vision of pelvic floor dysfunction. This questionnaire assesses urinary stress incontinence, urinary urgency, urinary frequency, urge urinary incontinence, pelvic organ prolapses, dysuria, dyspareunia, defecatory dysfunction, fecal incontinence, and the disability it causes to the respondent.
aimThe aim of the present study was to analyze the structural characteristics and psychometric properties of the different versions of the pelvic floor bother questionnaire, as well as the methodological quality, the quality of evidence, and the criteria used for good measurement properties.
methodsA systematic review was carried out in different databases, such as PubMed, SCOPUS, Web of Science, Dialnet, ScienceDirect, and CINAHL, on studies adapting and validating the pelvic floor bother questionnaire in other languages. The data were analyzed taking into account the guidelines of the preferred reporting item statement for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) and following the COSMIN guidelines, considering articles published up to 28 February 2022, and registered in the PROSPERO database.
resultsInitially, a total of 443 studies were found, from which a total of four studies were analyzed with regard to structural characteristics and psychometric properties, such as reliability, internal consistency, construct validity, and criterion validity.
conclusionsThe different versions of the questionnaires show basic structural characteristics and psychometric properties for the evaluation of patients with pelvic floor dysfunctions. Most of the analyzed versions present criteria for good measurement properties qualified as sufficient, inadequate-adequate methodological quality, and low-moderate quality of evidence.
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.