ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2026
Development of a Pelvic Organ Prolapse Misconceptions Scale for Hispanic Women.
Article in International urogynecology journal, 2026. 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 hypothesisMisconceptions about pelvic organ prolapse occur among Hispanic women. We develop and validate a novel scale measuring misconceptions about pelvic organ prolapse (POP) among Hispanic women.
methodsA cross-sectional survey of 406 Hispanic women was conducted. Participants completed 11 items about POP misconceptions, the Prolapse and Incontinence Knowledge Questionnaire (PIKQ-POP), and the Short Acculturation Scale for Hispanics (SASH). Principal component analysis was used.
resultsThe Pelvic Organ Prolapse Misconceptions Scale (POPMS) had two subscales: personal habits and sequelae (PHS) and treatment approaches (TA), with high internal reliability (KR-20 = 0.90 and 0.81, respectively). The POPMS PHS and TA subscales were each positively correlated (both r = 0.25, p < 0.001) with general POP knowledge of the PIKQ-POP. College-educated women had higher mean scores on the PHS (p < 0.001) and TA (p = 0.01) than those not college educated. The correlations and mean scores indicate acceptable criterion validity. Misconceptions were common: 44% answered all PHS items incorrectly, and 56% answered all TA items incorrectly. The PIKQ-POP was positively associated with three SASH acculturation subscales (all p < 0.001). The POPMS was not associated with any of the three SASH acculturation subscales.
conclusionsIn conclusion, the POPMS is a valid and reliable instrument to measure misconceptions about POP in Hispanic women. Importantly, while general POP knowledge correlates with acculturation, misconceptions do not. This shows that misinformation may persist even in more acculturated individuals. We recommend that clinicians consider administering the POPMS scale to their Hispanic patients. This will allow clinicians to better understand their patients' misconceptions about POP.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42053588What 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.