Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18060973›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of obstetrics and gynecology2007

Incidence of pelvic floor repair after hysterectomy: A population-based cohort study.

Roberta E Blandon, Adil E Bharucha, L Joseph Melton, Cathy D Schleck, Ebenezer O Babalola, Alan R Zinsmeister, John B Gebhart

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 51 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
51citing papers in PubMed, 1 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.

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

51 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

7 authors.

Roberta E BlandonDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, MN 55905, USA.
Adil E Bharucha
L Joseph Melton
Cathy D Schleck
Ebenezer O Babalola
Alan R Zinsmeister
John B Gebhart

Funding

Epidemiology and Mechanisms of Fecal IncontinenceR01HD041129 · NICHD · MAYO CLINIC COLL OF MEDICINE, ROCHESTER · PI BHARUCHA, ADIL E. · 2001 to 2005
$1.5M
NICHD NIH HHS R01 HD041129
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe objective of the study was to assess the incidence of and risk factors for pelvic floor repair (PFR) procedures after hysterectomy. STUDY

designUsing the Rochester Epidemiology Project database, we tracked the incidence of PFRs through June 2006 among 8220 Olmsted County, MN, women who had a hysterectomy for benign indications between 1965 and 2002.

resultsThe cumulative incidence of PFR after hysterectomy was 5.1% by 30 years. This risk was not influenced by age at hysterectomy or calendar period. Future PFR was more frequently required in women who had prolapse, whether they underwent a hysterectomy alone (eg, vaginal [hazard ratio (HR) 4.3; 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.5 to 7.3], abdominal [HR 3.9; 95% CI 1.9 to 8.0]) or a hysterectomy and PFR (ie, vaginal [HR 1.9; 95% CI 1.3 to 2.7] or abdominal [HR 2.9; 95% CI 1.5 to 5.5]).

conclusionCompared with women without prolapse, women who had a hysterectomy for prolapse were at increased risk for subsequent PFR.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overChildCohort StudiesFemaleHumansHysterectomyIncidenceMiddle AgedPelvic FloorRetrospective StudiesUterine Prolapse

Identifiers

PMID18060973
PMCPMC2562278

What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.