Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38830733›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2024

Pain and other complications of pelvic mesh: a systematic review of qualitative studies and thematic synthesis of women's accounts.

Amanda C de C Williams, Mary Lodato, Honor McGrigor

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Humanising Government Inquiry: A Realist Examination of a Restorative Approach to Surgical Mesh Harm in Aotearoa New Zealand.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Amanda C de C WilliamsPsychology and Language Sciences, UCL, London, UK amanda.williams@ucl.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-3761-8704
Mary LodatoIndependent Researcher, Kettering, UK.
Honor McGrigorPsychology & Language Sciences, UCL, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesSynthesis of the experience of women with pain from pelvic or vaginal mesh or its removal, to identify pain-related problems and to formulate psychological aspects of pain.

designSystematic review and thematic analysis of qualitative studies of pain from pelvic or vaginal mesh, or mesh removal, in women over 18 years, using individual interviews, focus groups, free text, or written or oral contributions to formal enquiries. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase and PsycINFO, from inception to 26 April 2023. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Qualitative studies of pain and other symptoms from pelvic or vaginal mesh or its removal; adults; no language restriction. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Line-by-line coding of participant quotations and study author statements by one author to provide codes that were applied to half the studies by another author and differences resolved by discussion. Codes were grouped into subthemes and themes by both authors, then scrutinised and discussed by a focus group of mesh-injured women for omissions, emphasis and coherence. Studies were appraised using an amalgamation of the CASP and COREQ tools.

results2292 search results produced 9 eligible studies, with 7-752 participants, a total of around 2000. Four recruited patients, four totally or partially from mesh advocacy groups, and two were national enquiries (UK and Australia). Four major themes were as follows: broken body, broken mind; distrust of doctors and the medical industry; broken life and keeping going-a changed future. Psychological content mainly concerned the loss of trust in medical care, leaving women unsupported in facing an uncertain future. Mesh-injured women strongly endorsed the findings.

conclusionsPain and other problems associated with pelvic mesh are profound and far-reaching for women affected. Worse, they feel subject to continued gaslighting, including denial of their mesh-related problems and dismissal of their concerns about continued mesh insertion. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022330527.

Indexed as

Qualitative ResearchSurgical MeshFemaleHumansPelvic Organ ProlapsePelvic Painadverse eventschronic painqualitative researchurinary incontinencesurogynaecology

Identifiers

PMID38830733
PMCPMC11149113

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.