ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2023
Pessary management practices for pelvic organ prolapse among Australian health care practitioners: a cross-sectional study.
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.
- How Can We Improve the Assessment and Indifferent Outcomes From Pelvic Organ Prolapse Management From Conservative and Surgical Therapies? ICI-RS 2025.Neurourology and urodynamics · 2026Review
- Challenges in Providing Gynecological Procedures in Primary Care: A Survey of Canadian Academic Family Physicians.Women's health reports (New Rochelle, N.Y.) · 2025Article
- A review: patient questions about use of vaginal ring pessaries for prolapse.Gynecology and pelvic medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisVaginal pessaries are a low-cost, effective treatment for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and an alternative to surgery. Whilst traditionally pessary management (PM) has been provided by medical professionals, particularly gynaecologists, recent international studies found other professionals, including physiotherapists and nurses, may be involved. It is unknown which health care practitioners (HCPs) provide PM for POP in Australia or the distribution of services.
methodsIn a cross-sectional study design, a self-reported electronic survey investigated Australian HCPs providing PM for POP. Purposive and snowball sampling targeted HCPs, professional organisations and health care facilities. Descriptive statistics described PM in relation to HCP professional profile, PM provision and geographical location.
resultsThere were 536 respondents (324 physiotherapists, 148 specialists, 33 general practitioners (GPs) and 31 nurses providing PM. Most worked within metropolitan regions (n = 332, 64%), 140 (27%) in rural, 108 (21%) in regional and 10 (2%) in remote areas. Most worked privately (n = 418, 85%), 153 (46%) worked publicly and 85 (17%) in both. Ring pessaries were most commonly used, followed by cube and Gellhorn. HCPs reported variable training in PM, and 336 (69%) had no mandatory workplace competency standard; however, 324 (67%) wanted further training. Women travelled long distances to access services.
conclusionsDoctors, nurses and physiotherapists provided PM in Australia. HCPs had variable training and experience in PM, with rural and remote HCPs particularly wanting further training. This study highlights the need for accessible PM services, standardised and competency-based training for HCPs, and governance structures ensuring safe care.
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.