Validation of a Chinese version for the global Pelvic Floor Bother Questionnaire

Liu, Zhaoxue; Zhou, Chengyu; Muñoz, Alvaro; Zhang, Yingchun; Li, Xuhong

doi:10.1007/s00404-021-06370-7

Cited by 1 publication

(9 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Finally, a total of four versions adapted and validated in languages other than the original were selected: Arabic [ 28 ], Chinese [ 29 ], Turkish [ 27 ], and Portuguese-Brazilian [ 26 ]. Then, the structural characteristics of each one of them were analyzed (see Table 1 ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Of the four adaptations of the PFBQ, only Liu et al [ 29 ] and Peterson et al [ 26 ] included this measure using Cronbach’s alpha where values ≥0.70 indicate good internal consistency and values <0.70 are considered low consistency [ 36 ]. The Chinese version [ 29 ] scored 0.677 and the Portuguese-Brazilian version [ 26 ] 0.625, both of which were of low consistency. In addition, only the Turkish version [ 27 ] considered the structural validity taken as a requirement in the COSMIN guidelines [ 31 ] to determine the level of internal consistency.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The objective of this review was to analyze the structural characteristics and psychometric properties, as well as to evaluate the methodological quality, quality of evidence, and good measurement properties of the included questionnaires and compare them with the original version [ 25 ]. A total of four versions of the PFBQ were included: Arabic [ 28 ], Chinese [ 29 ], Turkish [ 27 ], Portuguese-Brazilian [ 26 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This questionnaire assesses USI, urinary urgency, urinary frequency, UUI, POP, dysuria, dyspareunia, defecatory dysfunction, FI, and the disability it causes to the respondent. It was developed in 2010 by Peterson et al in English [ 25 ] and subsequently translated and validated in four different languages: Chinese, Turkish, Portuguese-Brazilian, and Arabic [ 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 ]. It would be necessary that this pelvic floor assessment tool be adapted and validated in other languages and that the structural characteristics and psychometric properties used in the published versions be taken into account in order to improve future versions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Analysis of the Structural Characteristics and Psychometric Properties of the Pelvic Floor Bother Questionnaire (PFBQ): A Systematic Review

Molina-Torres

Amiano-López

Córdoba-Peláez³

et al. 2022

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The Pelvic Floor Bother Questionnaire is a validated and reliable questionnaire that studies the presence and degree of pelvic floor discomfort, providing a global vision of pelvic floor dysfunction. This questionnaire assesses urinary stress incontinence, urinary urgency, urinary frequency, urge urinary incontinence, pelvic organ prolapses, dysuria, dyspareunia, defecatory dysfunction, fecal incontinence, and the disability it causes to the respondent. Aim: The aim of the present study was to analyze the structural characteristics and psychometric properties of the different versions of the pelvic floor bother questionnaire, as well as the methodological quality, the quality of evidence, and the criteria used for good measurement properties. Methods: A systematic review was carried out in different databases, such as PubMed, SCOPUS, Web of Science, Dialnet, ScienceDirect, and CINAHL, on studies adapting and validating the pelvic floor bother questionnaire in other languages. The data were analyzed taking into account the guidelines of the preferred reporting item statement for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) and following the COSMIN guidelines, considering articles published up to 28 February 2022, and registered in the PROSPERO database. Results: Initially, a total of 443 studies were found, from which a total of four studies were analyzed with regard to structural characteristics and psychometric properties, such as reliability, internal consistency, construct validity, and criterion validity. Conclusions: The different versions of the questionnaires show basic structural characteristics and psychometric properties for the evaluation of patients with pelvic floor dysfunctions. Most of the analyzed versions present criteria for good measurement properties qualified as sufficient, inadequate–adequate methodological quality, and low–moderate quality of evidence.

show abstract