ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2025
Patient Perception of Prolapse Condition Questionnaire: A Validated Patient-Reported Outcome Measure.
Article in International urogynecology journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisIdentifying patient-reported outcome measures allows management of urogenital prolapse to be tailored to reflect symptom bother and expectations of treatment. We devised a new single-item questionnaire, the Patient Perception of Prolapse Condition (PPPC), based on the Patient Perception of Bladder Condition (PPBC). The aim was to evaluate the criterion validity, test/re-test reliability and responsiveness of the PPPC.
methodsWomen attending a tertiary urogynaecology clinic were recruited. At visit 1, patients completed the Prolapse Quality of Life (P-QOL) and PPPC questionnaires, and underwent a Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) examination. This allowed assessment of criterion validity using Spearman's rank correlation (rho) of the PPPC against validated subjective and objective outcomes. At visit 2, within the next 6 weeks, PPPC was repeated to assess test/re-test reliability using Cronbach's alpha (α). In those undergoing pelvic floor surgery, responsiveness of the PPPC was assessed at visit 3 by correlating PPPC and P-QOL scores 6 weeks post-operatively.
resultsA total of 178 patients attended visit 1, 60 attended visit 2 and 58 attended visit 3. At visit 1, there were moderate correlations between the PPPC and both objective (POP-Q: rho = 0.385, p < 0.01, CI 0.192-0.549) and subjective (P-QOL: rho = 0.635, p < 0.01, CI 0.493-0.744) measures confirming criterion validity. Test/re-test reliability was high (α = 0.89). Correlation with post-operative PPPC and P-QOL confirmed moderate responsiveness (rho = 0.54, p < 0.01).
conclusionThe PPPC, a novel single-item patient-reported measure of prolapse condition, demonstrated good criterion validity, test/re-test reliability and responsiveness. These findings support the use of the PPPC as a global assessment of prolapse condition.
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.