SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2004
Mechanical devices for pelvic organ prolapse in women.
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.
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.
Extended Pessary Interval for Care (EPIC Study): Patient Preference for 3 Verus 6 Month Follow-up
Who cites it
30 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 80 citations in OpenAlex.
- Transvaginal mesh or grafts or native tissue repair for vaginal prolapse.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Pessaries (mechanical devices) for managing pelvic organ prolapse in women.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020Pooled it
- Surgery for women with posterior compartment prolapse.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- Surgery for women with anterior compartment prolapse.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016Pooled it
- Surgery for women with apical vaginal prolapse.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016Pooled it
- Transvaginal mesh or grafts compared with native tissue repair for vaginal prolapse.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016Pooled it
- Conservative prevention and management of pelvic organ prolapse in women.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2011Pooled it
- Systematic review of the efficacy and safety of using mesh in surgery for uterine or vaginal vault prolapse.International urogynecology journal · 2010Pooled it
- Oestrogens for treatment or prevention of pelvic organ prolapse in postmenopausal women.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2010Pooled it
- The extended pessary interval for care (EPIC) study: a failed randomized clinical trial.International urogynecology journal · 2021Trial
- Sexual Function and Pessary Management among Women Using a Pessary for Pelvic Floor Disorders.The journal of sexual medicine · 2015Trial
- The effect of hydroxyquinoline-based gel on pessary-associated bacterial vaginosis: a multicenter randomized controlled trial.American journal of obstetrics and gynecology · 2015Trial
- Pelvic organ prolapse: Women's experiences of Accessing Care & Recommendations for improvement.BMC women's health · 2023Article
- Complications of Pessaries Amenable to Surgical Correction: Two Case Reports and a Systematic Review of the Literature.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Review
- Article
- Laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy for uterovaginal prolapse using validated questionnaires: 2-year prospective study.International urogynecology journal · 2018Observational
- An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for the conservative and nonpharmacological management of female pelvic floor dysfunction.International urogynecology journal · 2017Article
- One-year prospective comparison of vaginal pessaries and surgery for pelvic organ prolapse using the validated ICIQ-VS and ICIQ-UI (SF) questionnaires.International urogynecology journal · 2015Article
- How often should shelf/Gellhorn pessaries be changed? A survey of IUGA urogynaecologists.International urogynecology journal · 2014Article
- The cube pessary: an underestimated treatment option for pelvic organ prolapse? Subjective 1-year outcomes.International urogynecology journal · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.