Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25792351›Full record

Trial reportInternational urogynecology journal2015

General or Spinal Anaesthetic for Vaginal Surgery in Pelvic Floor Disorders (GOSSIP): a feasibility randomised controlled trial.

B Purwar, K M Ismail, N Turner, A Farrell, M Verzune, M Annappa, I Smith, Zeiad El-Gizawy, J C Cooper

Abstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report 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 7 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

B PurwarDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Royal Stoke University Hospital, Newcastle Road, Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire, ST4 6QG, UK.
K M Ismail
N Turner
A Farrell
M Verzune
M Annappa
I Smith
Zeiad El-Gizawy
J C Cooper
Royal Stoke University Hospital · GBBirmingham Women's Hospital · GBPrincess of Wales Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introduction and hypothesisSpinal anaesthesia (SA) and general anaesthesia (GA) are widely used techniques for vaginal surgery for pelvic floor disorders with inconclusive evidence of the superiority of either. We conducted a randomised controlled trial (RCT) to assess the feasibility of a full scale RCT aiming to examine the effect of anaesthetic mode for vaginal surgery on operative, patient reported and length of hospital stay (LOHS) outcomes.

methodsPatients undergoing vaginal surgery, recruited through a urogynaecology service in a University teaching hospital, were randomised to receive either GA or SA. Patients were followed up for 12 weeks postoperatively. Pain was measured on a visual analogue scale; nausea was assessed with a four-point verbal rating scale. Patient's subjective perception of treatment outcome, quality of life (QoL) and functional outcomes were assessed using the International Consultation on Incontinence Modular Questionnaire (ICIQ) on vaginal symptoms and the SF-36 questionnaire.

resultsSixty women were randomised, 29 to GA and 31 to SA. The groups were similar in terms of age and type of vaginal surgery performed. No statistically significant differences were noted between the groups with regard to pain, nausea, quality of life (QoL), functional outcomes as well as length of stay in the postoperative recovery room, use of analgesia postoperatively and LOHS.

conclusionThis study has demonstrated that a full RCT is feasible and should focus on the length of hospital stay in a subgroup of patients undergoing vaginal surgery where SA may help to facilitate enhanced recovery or day surgery.

Indexed as

Anesthesia, GeneralAnesthesia, SpinalSuburethral SlingsAgedAnalgesics, OpioidAnesthesia Recovery PeriodAnesthetics, InhalationAnesthetics, IntravenousAnesthetics, LocalBupivacaineFeasibility StudiesFemaleFentanylHumansHysterectomy, VaginalIsofluraneAnalgesics, OpioidAnesthetics, InhalationAnesthetics, IntravenousAnesthetics, LocalBupivacaineFentanylIsofluranePropofol

Identifiers

PMID25792351
OpenAlexW2065353332

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.