ArticleBMC health services research2023
Evaluation and acceptability of patient-reported outcome measures in women following pelvic organ prolapse procedures.
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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Psychometric Assessment of a New Pain-Specific Patient-Reported Outcome Measure for Pelvic Floor Surgery Using Exploratory Factor Analysis.International urogynecology journal · 2026Article
- Application of patient-reported outcome instruments in nonsurgical management of pelvic organ prolapse: a scoping review.Revista da Escola de Enfermagem da U S P · 2026Article
- A Pilot Study of Capturing Patient Reported Outcome Measures in the Australasian Pelvic Floor Procedure Registry.The Australian & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology · 2025Article
- Patient and Clinician Feedback to Inform the Development of a New Pain-Specific Patient-Reported Outcome Measure for Pelvic Floor Surgery.International urogynecology journal · 2025Article
- How to Best Measure and Characterize Symptoms of Patients with Pelvic Floor Disorders.Clinics in colon and rectal surgery · 2025Review
- Sacrospinous fixation versus uterosacral ligament suspension in managing apical prolapse.World journal of urology · 2025Article
- Quality of Life Assessment After Pelvic Prolapse Surgery With and Without Mesh: A Literature Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Patient-reported outcomes in pelvic organ prolapse repair: the missing information needed to inform our understanding of what matters most to patients.Gynecology and pelvic medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.