Cited by 10Pelvic floor disorders treatmentsMaternal and Perinatal Health InterventionsMaternal and fetal healthcare

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 21 of the 21 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Do Symptoms of Pelvic Floor Disorders Bias Maternal Recall of Obstetrical Events Up to 10 Years After Delivery?

Open access
Chen, Crystal, Smith, LaPortia J., Pierce, Christopher B., Blomquist, Joan L., Handa, Victoria L.·2015·Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery

Abstract

In Brief Objectives The aim of this prospective study was to investigate whether symptoms of incontinence and prolapse bias maternal recall of obstetrical events up to 10 years after delivery. Methods In this secondary analysis of data gathered from the Mothers’ Outcomes After Delivery study, we compared obstetrical medical records with maternal recall of delivery events. We calculated the agreement between maternal recall and the medical record across 1821 deliveries from 1011 participants for events including macrosomia, mode of delivery, prolonged second of labor, episiotomy, spontaneous laceration, anal sphincter laceration, and operative delivery. Women with symptomatic pelvic floor disorders were identified through administration of the Epidemiology of Prolapse and Incontinence Questionnaire or a clinical history of therapy for a pelvic floor disorder. We determined whether agreement between maternal recall and the medical record differed for those with or without symptoms using the medical record as a criterion standard. Results Agreement between maternal recall and the medical record was excellent for macrosomia and forceps deliveries (κ > 0.8), fair to good for episiotomy (κ = 0.61) and anal sphincter laceration (κ = 0.57), and poor for spontaneous perineal laceration (κ = 0.41). Symptomatic pelvic floor disorders did not impact maternal recall of macrosomia, prolonged second stage, episiotomy, spontaneous laceration, or operative delivery. However, recall of anal sphincter lacerations was biased by symptoms of pelvic floor disorders. Specifically, symptomatic women were significantly more likely to report a history of anal sphincter laceration, regardless of whether a sphincter laceration was documented (P = 0.025). Conclusions Maternal recall of anal sphincter laceration may be biased by symptomatic pelvic floor disorders. In research based on maternal recall of obstetrical events, this could strengthen the apparent association between sphincter laceration and pelvic floor disorders. This study investigated long term maternal recall of obstetrical events. Women had difficulty recalling some details of childbirth, such as whether the cervix was dilated prior to cesarean. Agreement between maternal recall and the obstetrical record was poor for some details, most notably perineal laceration. In addition, women with symptomatic pelvic floor disorders were more likely to report a history of anal sphincter laceration, regardless of whether a sphincter laceration had occurred.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/spv.0000000000000158

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 21 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Hewson, 1987, Childbirth research data: medical records or womens reports Am J E, pidemiol, 125, 484

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 10

Metadata

Authors
Chen, C., Smith, L. J., Pierce, C. B., Blomquist, J. L., & Handa, V. L.
Affiliations
  • Greater Baltimore Medical Center (US)
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
Corresponding author
  • Chen, Crystal
  • Handa, Victoria L.
Venue
Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery
Published
2015-05
Volume
21
Issue
3
Pages
129-134
ISSN
2151-8378 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2080400977
Cited by
10
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1
FWCI
1.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Urogynecology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R01HD056275)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Urology › Pelvic floor disorders treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Maternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Maternal and fetal healthcare
Keywords
pelvic floor dysfunction, urinary incontinence, pelvic organ prolapse, perineal tears, episiotomy, mode of delivery, recall bias, episiotomy repair, episiotomy complications
MeSH terms
Adult, Female, Humans, Obstetric Labor Complications, Maternal Age, Medical Records, Mothers, Pregnancy, Prospective Studies, Mental Recall, Time Factors, Observer Variation, Delivery, Obstetric, Pelvic Floor Disorders

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