ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2023
The impact on complication rates of delayed routine pessary reviews during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Article in International urogynecology journal, 2023. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of Delayed Pessary Maintenance Appointments on Patient's Symptoms and Clinical Findings During the COVID-19 Pandemic.International urogynecology journal · 2026Article
- Updates in Pessary Care for Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- A randomized controlled study comparing the objective efficacy and safety of a novel self-inserted disposable vaginal prolapse device and existing ring pessaries.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, guidance was issued in the United Kingdom advising a delay in routine pessary reviews. The impact of this has not been fully explored. The null hypothesis for this study is that delayed routine pessary reviews during the COVID-19 pandemic did not result in a statistically significant increase in complication rate.
methodsA retrospective comparative cohort study was conducted in NHS Tayside, Scotland, involving 150 patients pre-pandemic and 150 patients during the COVID-19 pandemic (before exclusions). Their notes were reviewed identifying age, care provider, pessary type, length of pessary usage, review date, time elapsed since the previous review, bleeding/infection/ulceration, removal issues, pessary replacement and outcome. Patients excluded were those with no pessary in situ at review, reviews at ≤4 months and >8 months (pre-pandemic) and reviews at ≤8 months (COVID-19 pandemic).
resultsThe pre-pandemic group (n=106) had average review times of 10.1,6.2 and 6.2 months for cubes, rings and all others. Overall rates of bleeding/infection/ulceration; reported removal issues; and pessary subsequently not replaced were 9.4%, 11.3% and 5.7% respectively. The COVID-19 pandemic group (n=125) had average review times of 14.7, 10.8 and 11.4 months for cubes, rings and all others. Overall rates of bleeding/infection/ulceration; reported removal issues; and pessary subsequently not replaced were 21.6%, 16.0%, and 12.0% respectively.
conclusionsOverall, there was a significant increase in rates of bleeding/ulceration/infection (p=0.01). When individual pessaries were considered, this only remained true for rings (p=0.02). Our data would suggest that routine ring pessary reviews should not be extended beyond 6 months or risk bleeding/ulceration/infection.
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.