ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2025
A New Combined Urogynecology and Colorectal Surgery Pelvic Floor Clinic-1 Year On.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisThis study is aimed at characterizing patients seen at a new combined pelvic floor clinic (CPFC) established at a tertiary women's hospital in Singapore. Study goals include identifying patterns of symptom clusters and reviewing management strategies compared with international care standards, improving understanding of complex female pelvic floor dysfunction, and guiding future development of clinical and ancillary support.
methodsThis is a single-center, retrospective cohort study of medical case record review for all patients seen at the CPFC between 1 September 2020 and 31 August 2021. All patients seen at CPFC during this study period were included for analysis. Data were deidentified and aggregated, with analysis performed for descriptive and summary statistics. Institutional Review Board approval was obtained with waiver of informed consent.
resultsSixty-six referrals were made to the CPFC, with 57 patients seen in 11 clinic sessions across the 12-month period. The most common reasons for referral were fecal or flatus incontinence (30, 52.6%), severe constipation or defecatory dysfunction (21.1%), and rectal prolapse (17.5%). Most patients (78.9%) had multiple symptoms.
conclusionsOur patient demographic profile aligns with known risk factors for pelvic floor dysfunction, presenting with gastrointestinal symptoms-similar to PFCs worldwide. The new workflow and services were well positioned to address patients' needs, including those left previously untreated, or received uncoordinated care. Conservative approaches were first employed, like with other global PFCs. The combined multidisciplinary model of care resulted in good outcomes for patients managed both conservatively and surgically. Future studies to analyze patient satisfaction are planned.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39520530What 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.