Observational studyInternational urogynecology journal2015
The S.A.C.S. (Satisfaction-Anatomy-Continence-Safety) score for evaluating pelvic organ prolapse surgery: a proposal for an outcome-based scoring system.
Observational study in International urogynecology journal, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Quality-of-life improvements in patients after various surgical treatments for pelvic organ prolapse.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2024Review
- Sacrocolpopexy for posthysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse: long-term follow-up.International urogynecology journal · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisTo date, there is no overall consensus on the definition of cure after surgery for pelvic organ prolapse (POP). The aim of the study was to design and test the scoring system S.A.C.S. (Satisfaction-Anatomy-Continence-Safety) to assess and compare the outcomes of POP repair.
methodsA total of 233 women underwent open sacrocolpopexy. The S.A.C.S. outcome scoring system was scheduled at 24 months of follow-up, and each component was detected according to: Satisfaction by mean of Patient Global Improvement Inventory scale, Anatomy by mean of POP Quantification system and bulge symptom, Continence by mean of pad use, and Safety by mean of the Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications. Each component produced a binary nominal categorical variable (1 or 0), with a total score of 4 representing cure. As a comparative tool, patients answered a simple yes/no question: "If you had to undergo surgery all over again, would you still do it?". The degree of concordance was estimated using Cohen's Kappa test.
resultsAccording to the S.A.C.S. scoring system, only 160 patients (68.6 %) reached the maximum score of cure. Sensitivity of the S.A.C.S. score was 74.1 %, specificity was 90 %, total diagnostic capacity was 75.5 %. The S.A.C.S. score internal consistency was good; the k-coefficient was higher for the satisfaction component of the score (k = 0.560).
conclusionThis study proposes an original, simple post-operative scoring system integrating satisfaction, anatomy, continence, and safety reports for patients undergoing surgery for POP, providing a complete, although perfectible, method to accurately report outcomes in all clinical scenarios.
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.