Observational studyAmerican journal of obstetrics and gynecology2014
Pelvic organ prolapse in a cohort of women treated for stress urinary incontinence.
Observational study in American journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Transperineal Ultrasound Evaluation of Bladder Parameters in Patients with Apical Prolapse Undergoing Lateral Suspension or Sacropexy.Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology of India · 2024Article
- International urogynecology consultation chapter 1 committee 2: Epidemiology of pelvic organ prolapse: prevalence, incidence, natural history, and service needs.International urogynecology journal · 2022Review
- International Urogynecological Consultation: clinical definition of pelvic organ prolapse.International urogynecology journal · 2021Review
- Correlation of the type and degree of cystocele with stress urinary incontinence by transperineal ultrasound.Journal of medical ultrasonics (2001) · 2020Article
- Natural history of pelvic organ prolapse in symptomatic patients actively seeking treatment.International urogynecology journal · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 9 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of our study was to observe pelvic organ prolapse (POP) over time, treated and untreated, in a group of highly characterized women being followed up subjectively and objectively over 5-7 years following continence surgery. STUDY
designWe measured baseline prolapse symptoms and anatomic prolapse in subjects enrolled in the trial of midurethral sling (TOMUS) and E-TOMUS, and measured these same parameters annually for 5-7 years after the index surgery. Additional information about subsequent treatment for POP was also recorded.
resultsIn all, 597 women were randomized to 1 of 2 midurethral sling procedures in the TOMUS; concomitant vaginal procedures for POP were allowed at the surgeon's discretion. Stage 2 POP was present at baseline in 291 subjects (49%). Symptoms of POP were reported in 67 (25%). Of the asymptomatic women, 34 of 223 (15%) underwent a concomitant POP repair at the time of index sling surgery. Anatomic progression of prolapse in women with asymptomatic, unoperated stage 2 POP over the next 72 months was infrequent and occurred in only 3 of 189 subjects (2%); none underwent surgery for POP. Most symptomatic women (47/67 [70%]) underwent a concomitant repair for POP at the index sling surgery. Three of the 47 women who had undergone concomitant repair for symptomatic stage 2 POP underwent repeat POP surgery (2 at 36 months and 1 at 48 months.)
conclusionFor patient populations similar to the TOMUS and E-TOMUS populations, surgeons may counsel women with asymptomatic stage 2 POP that their prolapse is unlikely to require surgery in the next 5-7 years.
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.