Cited by 70Pelvic floor disorders treatmentsUrinary Bladder and Prostate ResearchUterine Myomas and Treatments

An international urogynecological association (IUGA)/international continence society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for reporting outcomes of surgical procedures for pelvic organ prolapse

Toozs‐Hobson, Philip, Freeman, Robert, Barber, Matthew, Maher, Christopher, Haylen, Bernard, Athanasiou, Stavros, Swift, Steven, Whitmore, Kristene +2 more·2012·Neurourology and Urodynamics

Abstract

Introduction and Hypothesis: Standardized terminology has yet to be developed for reporting the outcomes for surgery for pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Methods: This report combines the input of the Terminology and Standardization Committees of the International Urogynecological Association (IUGA) and the International Continence Society (ICS) and a joint Working Group on this topic, as well as expert external referees. The aim was to present a standardized terminology for the definitions of surgery and propose a structure for reporting the outcomes of surgical procedures for POP. An extensive drafting and review process was undertaken, as well as open review on both IUGA and ICS websites. Results: A terminology report was developed outlining the recommended structure for reporting outcomes of surgical trials involving POP. This document does not define success and failure. The report includes patient‐reported subjective and objective outcomes to enable researchers to report on their results and compare them with other studies. Conclusions: A consensus‐based method for standardizing terminology for reporting outcome measures of POP surgery was developed to aid clinicians working in this area of research. Neurourol. Urodynam. 31:415–421, 2012. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/nau.22238

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Toozs‐Hobson, P., Freeman, R., Barber, M., Maher, C., Haylen, B., Athanasiou, S., Swift, S., Whitmore, K., Ghoniem, G., & de Ridder, D.
Affiliations
  • University Hospitals Plymouth NHS Trust (GB)
  • Cleveland Clinic (US)
  • Wesley Hospital (AU)
  • UNSW Sydney (AU)
  • National and Kapodistrian University of Athens (GR)
  • Medical University of South Carolina (US)
  • Drexel University (US)
  • University of California, Irvine (US)
Venue
Neurourology and Urodynamics
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2012-04
Volume
31
Issue
4
Pages
415-421
ISSN
  • 0733-2467 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-6777
OpenAlex
W2137190599
Cited by
70
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 2
FWCI
3.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Neurourology and Urodynamics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rheumatology › Pelvic floor disorders treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Urology › Urinary Bladder and Prostate Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Uterine Myomas and Treatments
Keywords
pelvic organ prolapse, surgical outcomes reporting, terminology standardization, outcome measures, patient-reported outcomes, urogynecology
MeSH terms
Female, Humans, Terminology as Topic, Urologic Surgical Procedures, Urology, Treatment Outcome, Pelvic Floor, Consensus, Pelvic Organ Prolapse

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review