ArticleBMJ open2024
Determinants of women's preferences for surgical versus conservative management for pelvic organ prolapse: a survey-based study from Italy.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Post-Hysterectomy Vaginal Vault Prolapse: Current Perspectives and Decision-Making Considerations for Surgical Treatment.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Review
- Robot-assisted, Laparoscopic and Transvaginal Surgery for Pelvic Organ Prolapse: a Comparative Retrospective Single-Center Study.International urogynecology journal · 2026Article
- Observational
- Analyzing Global Trends in Uterine Prolapse Burden: A Comprehensive Study of Incidence and DALYs Across 204 Countries from 1990 to 2021.International journal of women's health · 2026Article
- Dynamic biomechanical equilibrium in pelvic organ prolapse: from mechanistic insights to precision reconstruction.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- National Survey on the Management of Genital Prolapse in Italy.International journal of women's health · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivePelvic organ prolapse (POP) affects 40% of women, with a 12%-19% lifetime surgical risk. Italy showed high practice variation in POP surgery, possibly impacting equity of access to healthcare services, a central goal of Beveridge-like health systems. According to the literature, unwarranted variation, influenced by physician attitudes or resource allocation, must be reduced. We aimed to identify determinants influencing women's choice when asked whether they prefer surgical or conservative POP management. DESIGN, SETTING AND POPULATION: In this nationwide prospective study, we distributed a Qualtrics questionnaire via social media to any Italian women over 18 years old who voluntarily decided to participate in the survey.
interventionA grade 3 POP scenario was presented. Women were asked how likely they would have surgery. Each woman randomly received only 1 question out of 11: 1 question was the reference question ('How likely would you have surgery?') while 10 questions contained a potential determinant influencing woman's choice ('How likely would you have surgery if…?'). OUTCOME: The outcome was the chance of choosing surgery expressed as a percentage. We analysed the effect of each factor on the outcome by using adjusted beta regression models.
resultsRespondents (n=222) opted for surgery with a median probability of 61.5%. Factors significantly increasing the chance of choosing surgery were advice from physicians, the presence of a trusted physician during hospitalisation, surgical approach with low complication rates, uterine-sparing surgery, the absence of postoperative abdominal scars and nearby hospital.
conclusionsOur findings provide health managers and policy-makers with new evidence to better understand women's decision-making and partly capture the determinants of unwarranted variation. These inputs may also be used as attributes for a future discrete choice experiment.
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.