ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2015
A nationwide survey concerning practices in pessary use for pelvic organ prolapse in The Netherlands: identifying needs for further research.
Article 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 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- How Can We Improve the Assessment and Indifferent Outcomes From Pelvic Organ Prolapse Management From Conservative and Surgical Therapies? ICI-RS 2025.Neurourology and urodynamics · 2026Review
- Pessary management practices for pelvic organ prolapse among Australian health care practitioners: a cross-sectional study.International urogynecology journal · 2023Article
- Does monthly self-management of vaginal ring pessaries reduce the rate of adverse events? A clinical audit.European journal of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive biology: X · 2022Article
- Pessary or surgery for a symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse: the PEOPLE study, a multicentre prospective cohort study.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2022Article
- Managing female pelvic floor disorders: a medical device review and appraisal.Interface focus · 2019Review
- Documenting pessary offer prior to hysterectomy for management of pelvic organ prolapse.International urogynecology journal · 2019Article
- Factors associated with the prescription of vaginal pessaries for pelvic organ prolapse.Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2019Article
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 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisTo identify practice variation in management of patients with a vaginal pessary for pelvic organ prolapse (POP).
methodsA nationwide survey was sent to all Dutch gynecologists with a special interest in urogynecology.
resultsThe response rate was 59 %. Of the respondents, 13 % had a written protocol for pessary treatment in their department. Pessary treatment was proposed by 69 % of respondents as a treatment option. Counseling about side effects varied. All respondents provided information concerning the possibility of serious vaginal discharge. Concerning this side effect, 15 % of the respondents stated that it occurs in 5 - 20 % of patients, 27 % that it occurs in 20 - 40 % of patients, and 57 % that it occurs in more than 40 % of patients. Another item concerned counseling for the likelihood of vaginal blood loss. All respondents provided information concerning the possibility of vaginal blood loss. Concerning this side effect, 53 % of the respondents stated that it occurs in 5 - 20 % of patients, 33 % that it occurs in 20 - 40 %, and 14 % that it occurs in more than 40 % of patients. Follow-up after initial placement was done by 69 % of the respondents at 2 - 6 weeks, by 2 % at 8 weeks, and by 29 % at 12 weeks or more. Most (98 %) of the respondents extended the interval between visits when the patient had no complaints, and 96 % of the respondents reported that they routinely instruct patients about self-management.
conclusionsPessaries are suggested as a treatment option by a majority of gynecologists, but practice varies widely. We consider that the variation in practice is due to a lack of available protocols and lack of evidence.
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.