ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2017
Predictors of length of stay after urogynecological surgery at a tertiary referral center.
Article in International urogynecology journal, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development and validation of a predictive model for postoperative urinary retention following pelvic organ prolapse surgery: a retrospective study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Quality-Adjusted Life-Years Outcome 1 Year After Surgery by Robotics-Assisted Sacral Hystero-Colpopexy Versus Vaginal Mesh for Pelvic Organ Prolapse Repair.International urogynecology journal · 2026Article
- Systematic review and meta-analysis of the pelvic organ prolapse and vaginal prolapse among the global population.BJUI compass · 2025Review
- Development and validation of a prediction model for postoperative urinary retention after prolapse surgery: A retrospective cohort study.BMC women's health · 2024Article
- A generic health-related quality of life instrument for assessing pelvic organ prolapse surgery: correlation with condition-specific outcome measures.International urogynecology journal · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisThe primary objective of this study was to determine significant predictors of length of stay (LOS) beyond the first postoperative day after urogynecological surgery.
methodsA single-center retrospective cohort study was conducted in 2015. Our study population included women who underwent inpatient pelvic reconstructive surgery. The primary outcome was LOS beyond the first postoperative day. A logistic regression analysis explored the relationship between 11 selected predictor variables [age, body mass index (BMI), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, distance from home to hospital, length of surgery, anesthesia during surgery, route of surgical approach, trial of void recordings, choice of bladder protocol, presence of concomitant sling, surgeon], and LOS.
resultsTwo hundred and sixty-three patients were included in this study. A logistic regression analysis identified route of surgery and trial of void recordings as the two statistically significant predictors of stay beyond the first postoperative day. The odds of LOS after laparoscopic or open surgery compared with vaginal surgery increased more than fivefold [laparoscopic vs. vaginal approach odds ratio (OR) 5.04, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.95-13.03; laparotomy vs. vaginal OR 15.56, 95 % CI 1.77-136.77] and more than threefold for a prolonged pass of the bladder protocol compared with an immediate pass (OR 3.25, 95 % CI 1.54-6.87).
conclusionOur study identified route of surgery and trial of void recordings as the two predictors with the greatest impact on LOS beyond the first postoperative day. Our results warrant a larger follow-up study.
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.