ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2023
Validation of online delivery of the Australian Pelvic Floor Questionnaire in an Irish obstetric population.
Article in International urogynecology journal, 2023. 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, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessment of Perinatal Pelvic Floor Dysfunction Symptoms and Risk Factors: Measurement Properties of the International Consultation on Incontinence-Perinatal Pelvic Health Self-Assessment Questionnaire (ICIQ-PPHSAQ).BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisChildbirth remains an important risk factor for the development of pelvic floor disorders, regardless of the mode of delivery. To accurately assess these symptoms, accurate, woman-centric assessments are needed. Online versions of these assessments may be especially useful in the COVID-19 era. Women may potentially answer questions differently in an online format, and this study aimed to validate an online version of the paper-based self-administered Australian Pelvic Floor Questionnaire (APFQ).
methodsThe questionnaire was completed antenatally and at 3 months postpartum by 647 and 481 women respectively. Test- validity was assessed in subgroups of 61 and 57 women in each period, using intraclass correlation coefficients and Cohen's kappa. Sensitivity to change was assessed by comparing responses during pregnancy to those at 3 months postpartum. Internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach's alpha. Construct validity was assessed by comparing women with and without subjective bothersomeness.
resultsIntraclass correlation coefficients were above 0.9 for all domains and the overall questionnaire. Cohen's kappa for individual questions ranged from 0.71-1.00 across the antenatal and postnatal questionnaires. Cronbach's alpha was acceptable for all domains except the prolapse domain. The APFQ was sensitive to changes occurring between antenatal recruitment and 3 months postpartum. Effect sizes ranged from 0.83-7.99.
conclusionsThis online version of the APFQ is valid for assessing pelvic floor disorders in an Irish obstetric population. The APFQ is reproducible and responsive to change occurring with childbirth, and can be used to research longitudinal changes in pelvic floor disorders. As an online tool, this questionnaire may be useful in increasing response rates to clinical research.
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.