Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42811185›Full record

ReviewInternational urogynecology journal2026

Patient Risk Factors for Incidental Pathology After Uterovaginal Surgery for Apical Prolapse: Systematic Review and Global Expert Consensus Statements.

Marie E Sullivan, Agustina Vendramini, Laura Cattani, Roxana Geoffrion, Ann-Sophie Page, Vinita Gottipati, Mackenzie Wood, Kaidi Kang, Kirsten Kluivers, Ankita Gupta and 8 more

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in International urogynecology journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

18 authors.

Marie E SullivanDepartment of Urogynecology and Pelvic Reconstructive Surgery, Wake Forest University, 140 Charlois Blvd, Winston Salem, NC, 27103, USA. marsulli@wakehealth.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2847-5249
Agustina VendraminiHospital Donación Francisco Santojanni and Hospital Naval Dr. Pedro Mallo, Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires, Argentina.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9109-7332
Laura CattaniDepartment of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, Louvain, Belgium.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5232-3619
Roxana GeoffrionUniversity of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1194-0842
Ann-Sophie PageDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospitals Leuven, Louvain, Belgium.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1827-0020
Vinita GottipatiAlbany Medical Center, Albany, NY, 12204, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2538-6689
Mackenzie WoodDepartment of Biostatistics and Data Science, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston Salem, NC, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0005-4788-029X
Kaidi KangDepartment of Biostatistics and Data Science, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston Salem, NC, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0922-5727
Kirsten KluiversRadboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4681-4304
Ankita GuptaDivision of Urogynecology and Pelvic Reconstructive Surgery, University of Louisville Health, 530 S Jackson Street, Louisville, KY, 40202, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7159-5695
Catherine A MatthewsDepartment of Urology, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston Salem, NC, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0006-2237-6094
John O L DeLanceyDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1012-7713
Carolyn SwensonDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0008-7717-673X
Maryse LaroucheUniversity of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9942-5540
Annika SinhaDivision of Urogynecology and Reconstructive Pelvic Surgery, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University, 5324 McFarland Drive, Suite 300, Durham, NC, 27708, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2702-7823
Julia Geynisman-TanNorthwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9225-6067
Fernanda PipitoneDisciplina de Ginecologia, Departamento de Obstetricia E Ginecologia, Faculdade de Medicina FMUSP, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5134-8523
Cara L GrimesAlbany Medical College, Albany, NY, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5927-1663

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introduction and hypothesisUterus preservation is increasingly used for uterovaginal prolapse (U-POP) repair despite ongoing concerns regarding future uterine, cervical, and adnexal pathology. We evaluated incidental pathology rates, associated risk factors, and created global consensus statements.

methodsFollowing Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, we searched for studies including women undergoing U-POP surgery with uterus present in ≥ 50% and cohorts of ≥ 30 participants exploring risk factors for pathology. Risk of bias was assessed using Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions and evidence certainty using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation framework. Meta-analyses were performed on the proportions of incidental pathology. Findings informed a modified Delphi process resulting in consensus statements on best practice.

resultsOf 4,148 screened records, 33 studies met the eligibility criteria. Meta-analysis showed that the pooled prevalence of malignant pathology at the time of surgery was 0.6% (95% CI 0.0-1.0%; I

conclusionsIncidental pathology in U-POP surgery is rare (< 1%), and no single risk factor reliably predicts malignancy. Preoperative screening does not show significant reduced malignancy rates in uterus-preserving surgery. Global consensus statements offer guidance on when hysterectomy should be considered over uterus preservation.

Indexed as

Consensus statementsHysteropexyIncidental pathologyOccult malignancyUterovaginal prolapseUterus-preserving surgery

Identifiers

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
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.