Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21725676›Full record

ReviewInternational urogynecology journal2012

Management of recurrent vault prolapse.

V V Toh, V Bogne, A Bako

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in International urogynecology journal, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 24% of its field
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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

V V TohDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Pilgrim Hospital, Sibsey Road, Boston, PE21 9QS Lincolnshire, UK. vivien.toh@nhs.net
V Bogne
A Bako
Pilgrim Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the ageing female population, recurrent vaginal vault prolapse is a significant healthcare burden. There is limited evidence regarding the optimal management strategy for recurrent vault prolapse. This paper aims to discuss treatment modalities available for recurrent vault prolapse. A literature search and analysis was performed using Medline, PubMed, Cochrane database, current texts and references from relevant articles. We found inconclusive evidence supporting conservative, mechanical and some surgical options for treating recurrent vault prolapse; including iliococcygeal fixation, McCall culdoplasty, and infracoccygeal sacropexy. Sacrospinous ligament fixation (SSLF), sacrocolpopexy, mesh implants and colpocleisis are shown to have good outcomes in Level II studies. Nevertheless, the first two are associated with haemorrhage, dyspareunia and scarring whilst colpocleisis is limited to selected patients. More well-designed studies are required for recurrent vault prolapse. Current evidence suggests SSLF, and sacrocolpopexy are alternative surgical options to colpocleisis in treating recurrent vault prolapse. Randomised trials are required to determine the efficacy and safety of trocar-guided mesh kits.

Indexed as

CicatrixDyspareuniaExerciseFemaleHumansPelvic Floor DisordersPelvic Organ ProlapsePessariesPostoperative ComplicationsPostoperative HemorrhageRecurrenceSuburethral SlingsSurgical Mesh

Identifiers

PMID21725676
OpenAlexW1963835552

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.