ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2025
Patient and Clinician Feedback to Inform the Development of a New Pain-Specific Patient-Reported Outcome Measure for Pelvic Floor Surgery.
Article in International urogynecology journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Psychometric Assessment of a New Pain-Specific Patient-Reported Outcome Measure for Pelvic Floor Surgery Using Exploratory Factor Analysis.International urogynecology journal · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionPelvic floor procedures may result in pain, negatively affecting women's health-related quality of life. Existing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) inadequately capture specific pain attributes and their relationship to pelvic floor disorders (PFDs). This study aimed to pretest items for a new pain-specific PROM post-pelvic floor surgery through focus groups/interviews.
methodsThis qualitative study utilised six focus groups/interviews with 15 adult Australian and New Zealand women with PFDs experiencing post-surgical pain and mesh complications. Consolidation with the Australasian Pelvic Floor Procedure Registry Steering Committee, consisting of 11 clinicians, also occurred. Women and clinicians provided feedback regarding 35 potential items for the new pain-specific PROM. Data from the discussions were transcribed and then thematically analysed using NVivo.
resultsWomen and clinicians agreed the new PROM could effectively address PFDs and pelvic floor surgical pain. Their feedback guided decision-making to modify items and design the pain instrument. Women recommended removing 14 of the 35 items, and clinicians from the registry steering committee suggested removing a further five items. The preliminary PROM with 16 items has been developed under seven key pain-related domains: sensation, region, intensity and continuity, triggers, interference, comorbidities and complications, and pain relief and management.
conclusionsThis qualitative study obtained direct input from women with PFDs and clinicians in formulating items for the new measure. A preliminary version of the PROM was produced from the feedback. Once fully developed and validated, the PROM could assist shared patient-clinician decision-making and track pain-related health outcomes important to women following pelvic floor surgery.
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.