Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15106231›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2004

Mechanical devices for pelvic organ prolapse in women.

E Adams, A Thomson, C Maher, S Hagen

Registry-linked trialAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01644214 (Extended Pessary Interval for Care), which is not on this map. Cited by 30 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
–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.

NCT01644214 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2016, after this paper: background citation

Extended Pessary Interval for Care (EPIC Study): Patient Preference for 3 Verus 6 Month Follow-up

TypeinterventionalSponsorUnity Health TorontoRan2016 to 2020Enrolled13ConditionsPelvic Organ Prolapse, PessaryArms6 month follow up for pessary check in the clinic setting
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

30 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 80 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Transvaginal mesh or grafts or native tissue repair for vaginal prolapse.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Pessaries (mechanical devices) for managing pelvic organ prolapse in women.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020
    Pooled it
  3. Surgery for women with posterior compartment prolapse.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018
    Pooled it
  4. Surgery for women with anterior compartment prolapse.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016
    Pooled it
  5. Surgery for women with apical vaginal prolapse.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Conservative prevention and management of pelvic organ prolapse in women.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2011
    Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

E AdamsDept of Urodynamics, Liverpool Women's Hospital, Crown Street, Liverpool, UK, L8 7SS.
A Thomson
C Maher
S Hagen
Glasgow Caledonian University · GBRoyal Hospital for Women · AUWesley Hospital · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPelvic organ prolapse is common, with some degree of prolapse seen in up to 50% of parous women in a clinic setting although many are asymptomatic. A number of symptoms may be associated with prolapse and treatments include surgery, mechanical devices and conservative therapies. A variety of mechanical devices or pessaries are described which aim to alleviate the symptoms of prolapse and avert or delay the need for surgery.

objectivesTo determine the effects of mechanical devices for pelvic organ prolapse. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group trials register (24 February 2004), MEDLINE (January 1966 to January 2003), PREMEDLINE (15 January 2003), EMBASE (January 1996 to January 2003), CINAHL (January 1982 to February 2003), PEDro (October 2003), the UK National Research Register (Issue 3, 2003), Controlled Clinical Trials (April 2003) and ZETOC (April 2003). We searched the reference lists of relevant articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials which included a mechanical device for pelvic organ prolapse in one arm of the study. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: No eligible, completed, published or unpublished randomised controlled studies were found, therefore no data collection or analysis was possible. MAIN

resultsThere was a dearth of studies on the use of mechanical devices and no published reports of randomised trials were identified. One study on pessary usage was excluded as it was not a randomised trial. REVIEWERS'

conclusionsCurrently there is no evidence from randomised controlled trials upon which to base treatment of women with pelvic organ prolapse through the use of mechanical devices/pessaries. There is no consensus on the use of different types of device, the indications, nor the pattern of replacement and follow-up care. There is an urgent need for randomised studies to address the use of mechanical devices in comparison with no treatment, surgery and conservative measures.

Indexed as

PessariesFemaleHumansProlapseRectal ProlapseUrethral DiseasesUrinary Bladder DiseasesUterine Prolapse

Identifiers

PMID15106231
OpenAlexW1807388580

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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 OpenQuestion graph.