ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2025
Dutch Translation, Cultural Adaption, and Validation of the German Pelvic Floor Questionnaire for Pregnant and Postpartum Women.
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 hypothesisPregnancy and childbirth are important risk factors for developing pelvic floor dysfunction (PFD). A valid and reliable screening instrument is essential for timely identification and treatment of PFD. The German Pelvic Floor Questionnaire for Pregnant and Postpartum women (PFQ-PP) assesses symptoms, severity, and impact on quality of life for the bladder function, bowel function, prolapse, and sexual health domain. However, no similar questionnaire exists in Dutch. This study was aimed at translating, culturally adapting, and validating the German PFQ-PP for use in the Netherlands, resulting in the Dutch PFQ-PP.
methodsA forward-backward translation method was used to translate and cross-culturally adapt the German PFQ-PP. Content validity was assessed by an expert committee of seven health care professionals who reviewed the translated version, and by using semi-structured cognitive interviews with four pregnant and five postpartum women. For field testing, 202 pregnant and postpartum women completed the questionnaire twice, with a 1-week interval to assess test-retest reliability, measurement error, and known group validity.
resultsThe Dutch PFQ-PP demonstrated good content validity both in health care professionals and in pregnant and postpartum women. Intraclass correlation coefficients ranged from 0.82 to 0.92. Standard errors of measurement ranged from 0.38 to 0.60 for the four domains (all domain scores ranging from 0 to 10). The questionnaire discriminated as expected between women suffering from symptoms and those who do not.
conclusionsThe Dutch PFQ-PP is valid and reliable in assessing bladder function, bowel function, prolapse, and sexual health in pregnant and postpartum women.
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.