SynthesisInternational urogynecology journal2023
Posterior compartment prolapse and perineal descent: systematic review of available support devices.
Synthesis 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- IUGA Opinion Paper on Obstructed Defecation: Management of Clinical and Proctographic Rectoceles.International urogynecology journal · 2026Review
- A 5-year evaluation of quality of life, pelvic discomfort, and sexual function following posterior pericervical repair.Journal of medicine and life · 2024Article
- Pessary-related complications: a brief overview.Gynecology and pelvic medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of our study is to systematically review the literature about available devices facilitating perineal support during defecation in patients with obstructive defecation syndrome (ODS) and posterior pelvic organ prolapse (POP).
methodsWe searched for the terms "defecat/ion or ODS" and" pessar/ies or device/aid/tool/perineal/perianal/prolapse and support" in MEDLINE, PubMed and Web of Science. Data abstraction was performed according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analysis) guidelines. A two-stage inclusion was performed, selecting first on title and abstract and secondly the full text. For variables with sufficient data, a meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model. Other variables were descriptively reported.
resultsTen studies out of 1332 were included for systematic review. The devices could be categorized into three groups: pessaries (n = 8), vaginal stent (n = 1) and external support device (n = 1). Methodology and data reporting is heterogeneous. Meta-analysis could be performed for the Colorectal-Anal Distress Inventory (CRADI-8) and Impact Questionnaire (CRAI-Q-7) in three pessary studies which showed a significant mean change. Significant improvement of stool evacuation was seen in two other pessary studies. The vaginal stent significantly decreases ODS. Subjective perception of constipation improved significantly using the posterior perineal support device.
conclusionAll reviewed devices seem to improve ODS in patients with POP. There are no data on their efficacy with regard to perineal descent-associated ODS. There is a lack of comparative studies between devices. Studies are difficult to compare due to different inclusion criteria and evaluation tools.
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.