Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37312203›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2023

Evaluation and acceptability of patient-reported outcome measures in women following pelvic organ prolapse procedures.

Rasa Ruseckaite, Randi Jayasinghe, Claire Bavor, Joanne Dean, Oliver Daly, Susannah Ahern

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Rasa RuseckaiteDepartment of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, 3004, Australia. rasa.ruseckaite@monash.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9078-2696
Randi JayasingheDepartment of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, 3004, Australia.
Claire BavorDepartment of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, 3004, Australia.
Joanne DeanDepartment of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, 3004, Australia.
Oliver DalyDepartment of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, 3004, Australia.
Susannah AhernDepartment of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, 3004, Australia.
Monash University · AUWestern Health · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Australasian Pelvic Floor Procedure Registry (APFPR) captures clinical and surgical data in women undergoing pelvic floor procedures. The inclusion of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) in the APFPR is a critical activity providing the additional patient perspective of their condition prior to surgery as well as monitoring beyond the usual post-surgical follow-up time. This study aimed to evaluate the acceptability of seven PROMs for women with pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and to determine the most suitable instrument for the APFPR.

methodsSemi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with women with POP (n = 15) and their treating clinicians (n = 11) in Victoria, Australia. Interview topics covered appropriateness, content, and acceptability of seven POP-specific instruments identified through the literature to determine their suitability and acceptability for inclusion in the APFPR. We analysed the interview data using conventional content analysis.

resultsAll study participants agreed that PROMs were needed for the APFPR. Both women and clinicians suggested that some of the instruments were ambiguous, too long and confusing. The Australian Pelvic Floor Questionnaire was accepted widely amongst women and clinicians and recommended for inclusion in the APFPR. All participants agreed it would be appropriate to capture PROMs before surgery, and then followed up post-surgically. Email, phone call or postal mail-out were the preferred options for PROMs data collection.

conclusionMost women and clinicians supported incorporating PROMs in the APFPR. Study participants believed that capturing PROMs would have potential use in individual care and improve outcomes of women with POP.

Indexed as

Electronic MailPelvic Organ ProlapseData CollectionFemaleHumansPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresVictoriaPelvic floor disordersQuality of careQuality of lifeRegistry

Identifiers

PMID37312203
PMCPMC10262477
OpenAlexW4380484635

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.