Correlation of Electronic (Web-Based and Smartphone) Administration of Measures of Pelvic Floor Dysfunction: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We hypothesized that instruments of pelvic floor dysfunction would yield similar responses on web-based and smartphone administration compared with paper. METHODS: Subjects presenting with pelvic floor disorders were prospectively enrolled at 5 sites and invited to complete 4 validated pelvic floor disorder questionnaires (Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory 20, Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire 7, Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Function Questionnaire 12, Bristol Stool Scale) on both paper and electronic formats, 2 weeks apart, with the order of administration being randomized. Participants completed the questionnaires electronically on the internet via REDCap or using the PelvicTrack App on a smartphone or tablet. RESULTS: Two hundred thirty-four subjects were enrolled, and 132 subjects (56%) completed both sets of questionnaires with no intervening treatment. This group was 58 (±15) years old with body mass index 28 (±6) kg/m and parity 2 (1, 3) and was 77% white, 6% African American, 7% Asian, and 10% other. Presenting complaints were classified as 58% urinary, 37% prolapse, and 5% defecatory. There was no difference in overall demographic information between those who completed the second round of questionnaires and those who did not. There was no difference in age between those who chose to complete the questionnaires via REDcap and those who chose to complete the questionnaires via smartphone. Correlation coefficients between questionnaire administration range from 0.5 to 0.8. There was no significant difference in the responses for each total scale and individual scale between the first or second administration. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated moderate to strong reliability between scales of pelvic floor dysfunction administered electronically compared with paper version. Our results strongly suggest that it is feasible and reliable to administer pelvic floor questionnaires in an electronic format on REDCap and on smartphones.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".