ArticleSurgical endoscopy2012
Qualitative and quantitative analysis of women's perceptions of transvaginal surgery.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Transvaginal cholecystectomy vs conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy for gallbladder disease: A meta-analysis.World journal of gastroenterology · 2015Pooled it
- Consumer demand for surgical innovation: a systematic review of public perception of NOTES.Surgical endoscopy · 2015Pooled it
- Review
- Comparison of Surgical Outcomes of Hysterectomy by Vaginal Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Surgery (vNOTES) versus Single-Port Access (SPA) Surgery.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Article
- Randomized trial on the physiologic impact of NOTES.Surgical endoscopy · 2015Article
- Patient perceptions about laparoscopy at Komfo Anokye Teaching Hospital, Ghana.The Pan African medical journal · 2015Article
- Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery for intra-abdominal emergency conditions.The British journal of surgery · 2014Review
- Update on natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery.Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrior surveys evaluating women's perceptions of transvaginal surgery both support and refute the acceptability of transvaginal access. Most surveys employed mainly quantitative analysis, limiting the insight into the women's perspective. In this mixed-methods study, we include qualitative and quantitative methodology to assess women's perceptions of transvaginal procedures.
methodsWomen seen at the outpatient clinics of a tertiary-care center were asked to complete a survey. Demographics and preferences for appendectomy, cholecystectomy, and tubal ligation were elicited, along with open-ended questions about concerns or benefits of transvaginal access. Multivariate logistic regression models were constructed to examine the impact of age, education, parity, and prior transvaginal procedures on preferences. For the qualitative evaluation, content analysis by independent investigators identified themes, issues, and concerns raised in the comments.
resultsThe completed survey tool was returned by 409 women (grouped mean age 53 years, mean number of 2 children, 82% ≥ some college education, and 56% with previous transvaginal procedure). The transvaginal approach was acceptable for tubal ligation to 59%, for appendectomy to 43%, and for cholecystectomy to 41% of the women. The most frequently mentioned factors that would make women prefer a vaginal approach were decreased invasiveness (14.4%), recovery time (13.9%), scarring (13.7%), pain (6%), and surgical entry location relative to organ removed (4.4%). The most frequently mentioned concerns about the vaginal approach were the possibility of complications/safety (14.7%), pain (9%), infection (5.6%), and recovery time (4.9%). A number of women voiced technical concerns about the vaginal approach.
conclusionsAs in prior studies, scarring and pain were important issues to be considered, but recovery time and increased invasiveness were also in the "top five" list. The surveyed women appeared to actively participate in evaluating the technical components of the procedures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
22044969What 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.