Table 1.

Structural characteristics of the questionnaires.

Questionnaire/Author, Year/Version	Population/Sample Size, Age, Group	Affected and Control Group	Setting/Geographical Location	Target Population	Number of Subjects—Phase Pilotage	Number of Subjects per Items
Validation of an Arabic version of the global Pelvic Floor Bother Questionnaire/Bazi et al., 2013 [28]/Arabic version	n = 130 patients Age.- AG: 50.14 ± 12.64 CG: 45.54 ± 11.19 Parity.- AF: 2.72 ± 1.96 CG: 1.83 ± 1.78	AG: 65 CG: 65	American University of Beirut medical center (AUBMC), Lebanon	UI or POP	18	14.44
Reliability and validity of a Turkish version of the Global Pelvic Floor Bother Questionnaire/Doğan et al., 2016 [27]/Turkish version	n = 131 patients. Age.- 46.83 ± 11.19		Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Abant Izzet Baysal University in Bolu, Turkey	SUI, UF, UU, VD, POP, OF, FI, or dyspareunia.	30	14.55
Validation of the Brazilian Portuguese version of the pelvic floor bother questionnaire/Peterson et al., 2019 [26]/Portuguese version	n = 147 Age 60.49 ± 12.02 Median parity 2 (0–15)		Urogynecology sector, Gynecology Discipline and the Anorectal Physiology sector, Discipline of Digestive System Surgery and Colorectal Surgery at the Clinics Hospital of University of São Paulo Medical School (HCFMUSP), São Paulo, Brazil	PFD	10	16.33
Validation of a Chinese version for the global Pelvic Floor Bother Questionnaire/Liu et al., 2022 [29]/Chinese version	n = 102 patients Age.- CG: 32.84 ± 9.382 AG: 30.92 ± 7.022 Parity.- CG: 1.31 ± 0.735 AG: 1.53 ± 0.731	AG: 51 CG: 51	Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Third Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Hunan, China	PFD	10	11.33

AG: Affected Group, CG: Control Group, PFD: Pelvic Floor Dysfunction, UI: urinary incontinence, POP: pelvic organ prolapse, SUI: stress urinary incontinence, UF: urinary frequency, UU: urinary urgence, VD: voiding difficulty, OF: obstructed defecation, FI: fecal incontinence.