ReviewCurrent urology reports2013
Are recurrence rates for "traditional" transvaginal prolapse repairs really that high? What does the evidence show?
Review in Current urology reports, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is a common and bothersome condition. Multiple methods for surgical repair exist, and much attention has been given to improving the efficacy of repair by implementing mesh interposition. Standard (native tissue-based) repairs in the anterior compartment have long been thought to be associated with high anatomical recurrence rates and the currently available randomized controlled trials (RCTs) support this thinking. However, subjective improvement in pelvic pressure and bulging and quality of life indices are similarly improved in both standard and mesh-augmented repairs. No RCTs are available to compare standard and mesh-augmented repairs in the posterior compartment. Despite the presence of RCTs, the data is often inconsistent and questions remain regarding the optimal criteria to describe POP recurrence. While there is a role for both types of repair, the optimal patient scenario is not known.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23400836What 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.