Cited by 18Pelvic floor disorders treatmentsUrinary Bladder and Prostate ResearchDelphi Technique in Research

Heterogeneity in post-intervention prolapse and urinary outcome reporting: a one-year review of the International Urogynecology Journal

Globerman, Dobrochna, Robert, Magali·2015·International Urogynecology Journal

Abstract

Introduction This review aimed to examine post-intervention prolapse, incontinence, and overactive bladder outcome measures published in the International Urogynecology Journal over the previous year and to report on the heterogeneity in outcome reporting. Methods All original article abstracts published in the print version of the International Urogynecology Journal in 2014 were reviewed for possible inclusion. Those reporting on prolapse and/or incontinence and/or overactive bladder outcomes following a urogynecological intervention were analyzed. Articles were reviewed for all reported outcomes. Outcomes were categorized as primary or secondary and objective or subjective. Results Of 117 original articles published, 45 were reviewed. Among primary outcomes, 9 different outcomes were reported for prolapse and 11 for incontinence and overactive bladder. For prolapse, 6 different objective and 13 subjective outcomes were reported. For incontinence, 21 objective and 36 subjective outcomes were reported. Three different definitions were used for the outcome of "prolapse cure," 3 for "prolapse recurrence," and 4 for "stress incontinence cure." Several validated and non-validated questionnaires in addition to single unvalidated questions were used to measure subjective outcomes. Conclusions This research highlights the diversity in outcome reporting for prolapse, incontinence, and overactive bladder after an intervention in the last year of publications alone. This can lead to serious challenges in the generation of higher order evidence, such as systematic reviews and meta-analyses. As a subspecialty, we need to aim for more cohesive reporting so as to allow for robust comparison and evidence dissemination.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00192-015-2720-y

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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
Globerman, D., & Robert, M.
Corresponding author
Globerman, Dobrochna
Venue
International Urogynecology Journal
Published
2015-05-06
Volume
26
Issue
9
Pages
1373-1378
ISSN
  • 0937-3462 (ISSN-L)
  • 1433-3023
OpenAlex
W268254957
Cited by
18
References
1
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 11 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2
FWCI
0.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • International Urogynecology Journal (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rheumatology › Pelvic floor disorders treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Urology › Urinary Bladder and Prostate Research
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
Keywords
outcome reporting heterogeneity, pelvic organ prolapse, urinary incontinence, overactive bladder, prolapse recurrence, outcome measures
MeSH terms
Female, Gynecology, Humans, Urinary Incontinence, Urology, Treatment Outcome, Urinary Bladder, Overactive, 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