Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27609058›Full record

Trial reportTrials2016

Two parallel, pragmatic, UK multicentre, randomised controlled trials comparing surgical options for upper compartment (vault or uterine) pelvic organ prolapse (the VUE Study): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

Cathryn Glazener, Lynda Constable, Christine Hemming, Suzanne Breeman, Andrew Elders, Kevin Cooper, Robert Freeman, Anthony R B Smith, Suzanne Hagen, Alison McDonald and 6 more

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyMulticenter StudyPragmatic Clinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Trials, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 89% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Surgical interventions for uterine prolapse and for vault prolapse: the two VUE RCTs.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2020
    Trial
  2. Article
  3. 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

16 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Cathryn GlazenerHealth Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Foresterhill, Aberdeen, AB25 2ZD, UK.
Lynda ConstableHealth Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Foresterhill, Aberdeen, AB25 2ZD, UK. l.constable@abdn.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-9646-3904
Christine HemmingDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, NHS Grampian, Aberdeen, UK.
Suzanne BreemanCentre for Healthcare Randomised Trials (CHaRT), University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
Andrew EldersNursing, Midwifery and Allied Health Professions Research Unit, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK.
Kevin CooperDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, NHS Grampian, Aberdeen, UK.
Robert FreemanDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Plymouth Hospital NHS Trust, Plymouth, UK.
Anthony R B SmithWarrell Unit, St Mary's Hospital, Manchester, UK.
Suzanne HagenNursing, Midwifery and Allied Health Professions Research Unit, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK.
Alison McDonaldCentre for Healthcare Randomised Trials (CHaRT), University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
Gladys McPhersonCentre for Healthcare Randomised Trials (CHaRT), University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
Isobel MontgomeryIndependent consumer representative, Aberdeen, UK.
Mary KilonzoHealth Economics Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
Dwayne BoyersHealth Economics Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
Beatriz GoulaoHealth Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Foresterhill, Aberdeen, AB25 2ZD, UK.
John NorrieCentre for Healthcare Randomised Trials (CHaRT), University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
University of Aberdeen · GBAberdeen Royal Infirmary · GBGlasgow Caledonian University · GBPlymouth Hospital · GBSt Mary's Hospital · GB

Funding

Chief Scientist Office HERU1Chief Scientist Office HSRU1Chief Scientist Office NMAHP2Department of Health 11/129/183
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOne in three women who have a prolapse operation will go on to have another operation, though not necessarily in the same compartment. Surgery can result in greater impairment of quality of life than the original prolapse itself (such as the development of new-onset urinary incontinence, or prolapse at a different site). Anterior and posterior prolapse surgery is most common (90 % of operations), but around 43 % of women also have a uterine (34 %) or vault (9 %) procedure at the same time. There is not enough evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to guide management of vault or uterine prolapse. The Vault or Uterine prolapse surgery Evaluation (VUE) study aims to assess the surgical management of upper compartment pelvic organ prolapse (POP) in terms of clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and adverse events. METHODS/

designVUE is two parallel, pragmatic, UK multicentre, RCTs (Uterine Trial and Vault Trial). Eligible for inclusion are women with vault or uterine prolapse: requiring a surgical procedure, suitable for randomisation and willing to be randomised. Randomisation will be computer-allocated separately for each trial, minimised on: requiring concomitant anterior and/or posterior POP surgery or not, concomitant incontinence surgery or not, age (under 60 years or 60 years and older) and surgeon. Participants will be randomly assigned, with equal probability to intervention or control arms in either the Uterine Trial or the Vault Trial. Uterine Trial participants will receive either a vaginal hysterectomy or a uterine preservation procedure. Vault Trial participants will receive either a vaginal sacrospinous fixation or an abdominal sacrocolpopexy. Participants will be followed up by postal questionnaires (6 months post surgery and 12 months post randomisation) and also reviewed in clinic 12 months post surgery. The primary outcome is the participant-reported Pelvic Organ Prolapse Symptom Score (POP-SS) at 12 months post randomisation. DISCUSSION: Demonstrating the efficacy of vault and uterine prolapse surgeries is relevant not only to patients and clinicians but also to health care providers, both in the UK and globally.

trial registrationCurrent controlled trials ISRCTN86784244 (assigned 19 October 2012), and the first subject was randomly assigned on 1 May 2013.

Indexed as

Hysterectomy, VaginalLaparoscopySuture TechniquesClinical ProtocolsFemaleGynecologic Surgical ProceduresHumansMiddle AgedPelvic Organ ProlapsePostoperative ComplicationsQuality of LifeResearch DesignSurgical MeshSurveys and QuestionnairesTime FactorsTreatment OutcomeHysterectomyProlapseRandomised controlled trialSuspensionSymptomsUterineVault

Identifiers

PMID27609058
PMCPMC5016955
OpenAlexW2513569096

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.