ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2025
Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Validation of the Portuguese Version of the "Australian Pelvic Floor Questionnaire".
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisPelvic floor dysfunction (PFD) is a common problem that occurs among women and increases with age and weight. This study was aimed at cross-culturally adapting and validating the original version of the Australian Pelvic Floor Questionnaire (APFQ) into Portuguese.
methodsThe process of cultural and linguistic adaptation and validation followed the guidelines. The obtained Portuguese version was assessed by an expert panel of physiotherapists specialized in women's health. Women with pelvic floor dysfunction also participated in a cognitive pre-test (n = 9). A sample of 50 women with PFD completed the questionnaire to evaluate internal consistency, construct validity, reproducibility, floor/ceiling effects assessment, and standard error of measurement. Test-retest was assessed with a 2-week interval. The study was approved by the Ethics Commission and all participants signed an informed consent form.
resultsFifty women with a mean age of 53.90 (± 18.57) years, BMI of 27.5 (± 4.2), 55.6% with a bachelor's degree, and all with at least one child, participated in the study. The psychometric properties of the APFQ showed a high Cronbach's alpha for the four domains: bladder (0.837), bowel and sexual function (0.756), pelvic organ prolapse (0.840), and total score (0.714). In terms of reproducibility, intraclass coefficient domain values ranged from 0.934 to 0.976, with a total score of 0.948.
conclusionsThe APFQ was cultural and linguistically adapted and validated for Portuguese. The Portuguese version of the APFQ (APFQ_P) showed acceptable values of validity and good reliability. It can be used in both clinical evaluation and in research on pelvic floor dysfunction.
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.