Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25185629›Full record

ArticleFemale pelvic medicine & reconstructive surgery

Pelvic organ prolapse: a disease of silence and shame.

Gena C Dunivan, Jennifer T Anger, Alexandriah Alas, Cecilia Wieslander, Claudia Sevilla, Stephanie Chu, Sally Maliski, Biatris Barrera, Karyn Eiber, Rebecca G Rogers

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Female pelvic medicine & reconstructive surgery. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 66 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Measuring Pelvic Organ Prolapse: An Evolution.International urogynecology journal · 2024
    Review
  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

10 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Gena C DunivanFrom the *Division of Urogynecology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM; †Departments of Urology, and ‡Obstetrics and Gynecology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Beverly Hills; §Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Olive View-UCLA Medical Center, Sylmar; ∥Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles; ¶UCLA School of Nursing, Los Angeles, CA; #Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM; and **Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Beverly Hills, CA.
Jennifer T Anger
Alexandriah Alas
Cecilia Wieslander
Claudia Sevilla
Stephanie Chu
Sally Maliski
Biatris Barrera
Karyn Eiber
Rebecca G Rogers
Cedars-Sinai Medical Center · USUCLA Medical Center · USUniversity of New Mexico · USOlive View-UCLA Medical Center · US

Funding

UNM HSC Clinical and Translational Science CenterUL1TR001449 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO HEALTH SCIS CTR · PI CAMPEN, MATTHEW J, PANDHI, NANCY · 2015 to 2024
$36.9M
UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO CLINICAL AND TRANSLATIONAL SCIENCE CENTERUL1RR031977 · NCRR · UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO · PI LARSON, RICHARD S · 2010 to 2011
$8.8M
QUALITY-OF-CARE INDICATORS FOR OVERACTIVE BLADDER SYMPTOMSK23DK080227 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI ANGER, JENNIFER TASH · 2007 to 2011
$663k
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001449NCRR NIH HHS UL1 RR031977NCRR NIH HHS UL1-RR031977NIDDK NIH HHS 1 K23DK080227NIDDK NIH HHS 5K23DK080227NIDDK NIH HHS K23 DK080227
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe objectives of this study are to better understand women's experience with pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and to compare this experience between English-speaking and Spanish-speaking women.

methodsWomen with POP were recruited from female urology and urogynecology clinics. Eight focus groups of 6 to 8 women each were assembled-4 groups in English and 4 in Spanish. A trained bilingual moderator conducted the focus groups. Topics addressed patients' perceptions, their knowledge and experience with POP symptoms, diagnostic evaluation, physician interactions, and treatments.

resultsBoth English-speaking and Spanish-speaking women expressed the same preliminary themes-lack of knowledge regarding the prevalence of POP, feelings of shame regarding their condition, difficulty in talking with others, fear related to symptoms, and emotional stress from coping with POP. In addition, Spanish-speaking women included fear related to surgery and communication concerns regarding the use of interpreters. Two overarching concepts emerged-first, a lack of knowledge, which resulted in shame and fear and second, public awareness regarding POP is needed. From the Spanish speaking, an additional concept was the need to address language barriers and the use of interpreters.

conclusionsBoth English-speaking and Spanish-speaking women felt ashamed of their POP and were uncomfortable speaking with anyone about it, including physicians. Educating women on the meaning of POP, symptoms, and available treatments may improve patients' ability to discuss their disorder and seek medical advice; for Spanish-speaking women, access to translators for efficient communication is needed.

Indexed as

ShameAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCommunication BarriersFemaleFocus GroupsHealth Services AccessibilityHispanic or LatinoHumansLanguageMiddle AgedPatient Education as TopicPatient SatisfactionPelvic Organ ProlapseUnited States

Identifiers

PMID25185629
PMCPMC4213231
OpenAlexW2318790139

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.