ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2024
Reliability and Validation of the PFIQ-7 and PFDI-20 in the Luganda Language.
Article in International urogynecology journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Hungarian Validation of the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory - 20 (PFDI-20) Questionnaire and the Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire - 7 (PFIQ-7).International urogynecology journal · 2026Article
- Comparison of postoperative recovery and complications: laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy versus transvaginal sacrospinous ligament suspension.American journal of translational research · 2026Article
- Cultural Adaptation and Validation of the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory Short Form (PFDI-20) and Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire Short Form (PFIQ-7) Portuguese Versions.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisPelvic floor disorders (PFDs) impact women worldwide and are assessed using instruments such as the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI-20) and Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire (PFIQ-7). There are no known valid PFD instruments in Uganda. This study's purpose was to translate and test the reliability and validity of the PFDI-20 and PFIQ-7 in Luganda. It was predicted that these instruments would be reliable and valid to assess the presence and impact of PFD in parous Luganda-speaking women.
methodsThe translated PFDI-20 and PFIQ-7 were administered to parous Luganda-speaking women and readministered 4-8 months after. The Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) examination determined the presence of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and a cough-stress test (CST) measured urinary leakage. Analysis was completed using Cronbach's α co-efficient for internal consistency and Spearman's correlation coefficients and Wilcoxon rank sum tests for construct validity.
resultsOf the 159 participants, 93 (58.3%) had stage II POP or higher. The PFDI-20 and PFIQ-7 demonstrated minimal bother and impact on activities of daily living respectively. The Urinary Distress Inventory 6 (UDI-6) scores on the PFDI-20 showed a strong positive association with the presence of urinary incontinence. When PFD was defined by responses to symptom assessment, the translated PFDI-20 and PFIQ-7 could differentiate between individuals with and without PFD.
conclusionsThe UDI-6 section of the PFDI-20 was found to be valid in Luganda. The PFIQ-7 and the entirety of the PFDI-20 were not found to be reliable or valid, likely because of the low prevalence of PFDs in the study population.
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.