ArticleBMC women's health2020
Pelvic organ prolapse and uterine preservation: a survey of female gynecologists (POP-UP survey).
Article in BMC women's health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Vaginal Hysterectomy and Pelvic Organ Prolapse: History and Recent Developments.International urogynecology journal · 2024Review
- Pilsner Modification of Mesh Sacrohysterocolpopexy (PiMMS): An Initial Report on Safety and Efficacy.International urogynecology journal · 2024Article
- Summary: 2021 International Consultation on Incontinence Evidence-Based Surgical Pathway for Pelvic Organ Prolapse.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
- Pelvic organ prolapse and uterine preservation: a cohort study (POP-UP study).BMC women's health · 2021Article
- The Pros and Cons of Hystero-preservation on Pelvic Reconstructive Surgery.Gynecology and minimally invasive therapyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study was to explore the personal views of female gynecologists regarding the management of POP with a particular focus on the issue of uterine sparing surgery.
methodsA questionnaire based survey of practicing female gynecologists in the Czech Republic, Slovenia and Slovakia.
resultsA total of 140 female gynecologists from 81 units responded to our questionnaire. The majority of respondents stated they would rely on a urogynecologist to aid them with their choice of POP management options. The most preferred options for POP management were sacrocolpopexy and physiotherapy. Almost 2/3 of respondents opted for a hysterectomy together with POP surgery, if they were menopausal, even if the anatomical outcome was similar to uterine sparing POP surgery. Moreover, 81.4% of respondents, who initially opted for a uterine sparing procedure, changed their mind if the anatomical success of POP surgery with concomitant hysterectomy was superior. Discussing uterine cancer risk in relation to other organs had a less significant impact on their choices.
conclusionsThe majority of female gynecologists in our study opted for hysterectomy if they were postmenopausal at the time of POP surgery. However, variation in information provision had an impact on their choice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.