SynthesisActa obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica2025
Treatment outcomes of Manchester procedure versus vaginal hysterectomy for mid-compartment prolapse: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Treatment outcomes of Manchester procedure versus vaginal hysterectomy for mid-compartment prolapse: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2025Pooled it
- A Systematic Review (and Meta-Analysis) and Global Expert Consensus Statements (U-POP): The Manchester Procedure.International urogynecology journal · 2026Article
- Postoperative Outcomes of the Manchester-Fothergill Procedure: Cervical Cytology Adequacy and Transformation Zone Accessibility: A Prospective Cohort Study.International urogynecology journal · 2026Article
- Medium- to Long-Term Follow-Up Study on Modified Manchester Procedure for Pelvic Organ Prolapse.International urogynecology journal · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionTo compare the effectiveness and safety of Manchester procedure versus vaginal hysterectomy in the treatment of mid-compartment prolapse in women. MATERIAL AND
methodsWe searched PubMed, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), prospective, or retrospective studies comparing the Manchester procedure and vaginal hysterectomy up to July 2024. Primary outcomes included anatomical recurrence, subjective recurrence, overall complication rate, and reoperation. Secondary outcomes included estimated blood loss, operative time, and relevant subgroup analyses. This study has been registered in PROSPERO with the registration number CRD42024575874.
resultsA total of 11 783 cases from 1 RCT, 1 prospective study, and 9 retrospective studies were included. For the primary outcomes, the Manchester procedure demonstrated significantly lower subjective recurrence rates (risk ratio [RR] = 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.73-0.98; I
conclusionsOverall, the rates of anatomical recurrence and overall complications for Manchester procedure and vaginal hysterectomy are similar. Manchester procedure appears to have a lower subjective recurrence and reoperation rate in the short term, but this advantage was not observed in mid- to long-term follow-up. Further high-quality prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings.
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.