Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39114831›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2024

Surgical outcomes of sacrospinous hysteropexy and hysteropreservation for pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

Xinyu Xiao, Xia Yu, Litong Yin, Ling Zhang, Dan Feng, Lushuang Zhang, Zhaolin Gong, Qiang Zhang, Yonghong Lin, Li He

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

10 authors.

Xinyu Xiao *Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Chengdu Women's and Children's Central Hospital, School of Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China.
Xia Yu *Department of Clinical Laboratory, Chengdu Women's and Children's Central Hospital, Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital, School of Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China.
Litong Yin *Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Chengdu Women's and Children's Central Hospital, School of Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China.
Ling ZhangDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Chengdu Women's and Children's Central Hospital, School of Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China.
Dan FengDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Chengdu Women's and Children's Central Hospital, School of Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China.
Lushuang ZhangDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Chengdu Women's and Children's Central Hospital, School of Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China.
Zhaolin GongDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Chengdu Women's and Children's Central Hospital, School of Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China.
Qiang ZhangDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Chengdu Women's and Children's Central Hospital, School of Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China.
Yonghong LinDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Chengdu Women's and Children's Central Hospital, School of Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China.
Li HeDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Chengdu Women's and Children's Central Hospital, School of Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: In several randomized controlled trials (RCTs), sacrospinous hysteropexy and other forms of hysteropreservation have been compared. Nevertheless, there is no definitively best treatment. This study summarized RCT evidence for various uterine preservation surgical procedures. Methods: From each database inception to August 2023, we searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science for eligible RCTs. A comparison was made between sacrospinous hysteropexy and other hysteropreservation, including vaginal and abdominal surgery. For categorical and continuous variables, relative risks (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) were calculated using random-effects models. Results: We reviewed a total 1,398 studies and ultimately included five RCTs that met all inclusion criteria. These five studies included a total of 1,372 uterine POP cases all of whom received transvaginal surgery and had a follow-up period for assessment of recurrence from 12 months to 5 years. There were no significant differences between sacrospinous hysteropexy and other hysteropreservation for the incidences of recurrence (RR,1.24; 95% CI, 0.58 to 2.63; Conclusion: There was no difference between sacrospinous hysteropexy and hysteropreservation in terms of recurrence, hematoma, mesh exposure, dyspareunia, urinary tract infection, bothersome bulge symptoms, operative time, pain, and blood loss. Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO [CRD42023470025].

Indexed as

hysteropreservationmeta-analysispelvic organ prolapsesacrospinous hysteropexyurinary tract infection

Identifiers

PMID39114831
PMCPMC11303157

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.