ArticleInvestigative and clinical urology2022
Comparison of outcomes between pessary use and surgery for symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse: A prospective self-controlled study.
Article in Investigative and clinical urology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sexual and Urinary Health among Women following Bariatric Surgery.Obesity surgery · 2024Article
- Quality of Life after Treatment for Pelvic Organ Prolapse in Real-World Study: Recommendations, Vaginal Pessary, and Surgery.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Observational
- Quality-of-life improvements in patients after various surgical treatments for pelvic organ prolapse.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2024Review
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
purposeWe compared the degree of pelvic floor symptom improvement between pessary use and prolapse surgery. MATERIALS AND
methodsPessary-naïve women who elected prolapse surgery were enrolled and used a pessary preoperatively (for ≥7 days and ≤30 days). Pelvic floor symptoms were assessed at baseline, after pessary use, and at 3 months postoperatively. The primary outcome was concordance in the degree of symptoms improvement between pessary use and surgery, as assessed by Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I). Secondary outcomes were related to prolapse specific symptoms on validated questionnaires (POPDI-6, PFIQ-7). The McNemar test was used for comparisons of discordant pairs for comparisons of the PGI-I ratings after pessary use and surgery.
resultsSixty-one participants were enrolled (March 2016 through April 2019) and 58 patients used a pessary. Mean±standard deviation age was 60.7±10.7 years; 24.1% had prior hysterectomy, and 13.8% had prior prolapse surgery. While both treatments demonstrated symptomatic improvement, concordance in the degree of overall improvement on the PGI-I score was poor (n=40); responses significantly favored more improvement postoperatively (p<0.001). Pessary use and surgery were associated with significant improvements in prolapse symptoms from baseline on POPDI-6 (both p<0.001) and POPIQ-7 (pessary, p=0.002; surgery, p<0.001). The degree of improvement was larger postoperatively compared to post-pessary use on POPDI-6 (p<0.001) and PFIQ-7 (p=0.004).
conclusionsBoth pessary use and surgery significantly improved pelvic floor symptoms from baseline. However, concordance in degrees of improvement between these treatments was poor, with more favorable outcomes after surgery for prolapse symptoms.
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.