ArticleHealth and quality of life outcomes2025
Developing items for inclusion in a new pain-specific patient-reported outcome measure for pelvic floor surgery: a mixed-methods study.
Article in Health and quality of life outcomes, 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
backgroundWomen undergoing pelvic floor procedures (PFPs) to treat their pelvic floor disorder (PFD) may experience pain, affecting their health-related quality of life. Current patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) assess pain but are not specific to PFD post-surgery. This study was part of developing a new pain-specific PROM for women following PFP, aimed to (1) refine an existing conceptual framework to better understand post- post-PFP in women, (2) draft potential items, and (3) develop a consensus set of items for the new measure to ensure content validity.
methodsA mixed-methods approach was used to address the aim in three phases: (1) refining an existing conceptual framework for post-PFP pain based on feedback from semi-structured interviews with 16 women, (2) drafting potential items based on the revised framework, and (3) conducting an online two-round Delphi survey with 17 experts ranked to rank, review items, then produce a consensus set.
resultsThe interviews conducted identified key attributes of pain that need to be addressed in the new pain instrument for PFP. From the interviews, 114 items were drafted under eight framework domains, and then presented to a panel in the Delphi survey. After two Delphi rounds, 35 items were finalised, with 11 equally merged or deleted, resulting in a final set of 35 items.
conclusionThis is the first study to develop a set of items for the new pain measure based on the experiences and expertise of women and clinicians. Inclusion of the items can offer valuable insight into pain after PFP.
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.