Trial reportPloS one2025
Economic evaluation of Manchester procedure versus sacrospinous hysteropexy: A follow-up analysis of a randomized clinical trial.
Trial report in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The Manchester procedure: A systematic review of recurrence, perioperative measures, and financial cost, and a scoping review of sexual dysfunction, gynecologic cancer, and obstetric outcomes.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2026Pooled it
- Key Conditions for Successful Implementation of the Manchester Procedure as Primary Surgical Treatment for Mild to Moderate Uterine Prolapse: A Qualitative Study Among Dutch Gynecologists.International urogynecology journal · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPelvic organ prolapse is a common condition in females. The reported lifetime risk of undergoing pelvic organ prolapse surgery is estimated to affect up to 20% of women. Recently, a higher level of surgical success after the Manchester procedure has been shown compared to sacrospinous hysteropexy. As the costs in healthcare are rising, it is also important to consider the resources and associated cost implications of the choice between these two procedures. An economic evaluation was conducted to compare the alternative costs and benefits.
methodsAn economic evaluation alongside a randomized controlled trial (RCT) was performed from a societal and healthcare perspective at 2 years of follow-up according to the intention to treat principle. The RCT was a multicenter, randomized, open label trial, executed in 26 Dutch hospitals. 434 women were randomly assigned to the Manchester procedure or sacrospinous hysteropexy. Direct costing data were obtained from electronic case report forms and Medical Consumption Questionnaires. Indirect costing data were obtained by the Productivity Cost Questionnaire. Quality-adjusted Life Years (QALYs) were calculated from the scores on the Euroqol5D-5L questionnaire. Mean cost differences and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated.
resultsFrom the societal perspective, the Manchester procedure was significantly less expensive than sacrospinous hysteropexy, with a mean difference of 1458.34 euros (95% CI -2746.16 to -170.52). There was no significant difference in the number of QALYs gained over period of 2 years between the arms: 1.67 QALYs (95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.63 to 1.71) for the sacrospinous hysteropexy group and 1.68 QALYs (95% CI 1.65 to 1.72) for the Manchester procedure group (p = 0.346).
conclusionsDuring two years of follow-up the Manchester procedure and sacrospinous hysteropexy showed no statistically significant different effectiveness in terms of QALYs gained against significantly higher costs for sacrospinous hysteropexy.
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.