ArticleThe Australian & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology2025
A Pilot Study of Capturing Patient Reported Outcome Measures in the Australasian Pelvic Floor Procedure Registry.
Article in The Australian & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology, 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPatient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) are increasingly being introduced in clinical registries. The Australasian Pelvic Floor Procedure Registry (APFPR) is a clinical quality registry which records information about procedures for stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse. This study aimed to determine the feasibility of capturing PROMs in women with pelvic floor disorders (PFDs) identified via the APFPR, using various modes and methods of administration.
methodsWe administered the Australian Pelvic Floor Questionnaire (APFQ) in women with PFDs prior to surgery (baseline) and 6 months post-surgery through a combination of email, postal mail, SMS and telephone. The study was carried out from July 2022 to May 2023. Results were reported descriptively, as number and proportion for PROMs response rates and data completeness, and as a mean and standard deviation (SD) for the APFQ scores.
resultsThe APFQ was administered to 140 patients at baseline and to 112 post-surgery. The baseline PROMs response rates were high (75%), but decreased to 56% at follow up. The overall APFQ completeness was ~98%. The APFQ dysfunction scores revealed a significant improvement at 6 months (mean [SD] score at baseline = 14.5 [5.7], 6 months = 11.4 [6.5], p ≤ 0.001). Significant improvement in the bladder and prolapse domains (p ≤ 0.001) were particularly observed.
conclusionThe results showed an overall improvement in quality of life scores at follow up. The APFQ data completeness was high and response rates were satisfactory, suggesting that the APFQ was a suitable instrument for the APFPR.
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.