ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2018
Relationship of degree of uterine prolapse between pelvic examination in lithotomy position with cervical traction and pelvic examination in standing position.
Article in International urogynecology journal, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- International Urogynecology consultation chapter 2 committee 3: the clinical evaluation of pelvic organ prolapse including investigations into associated morbidity/pelvic floor dysfunction.International urogynecology journal · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisThe Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) assessment is a standardized tool for evaluating pelvic organ prolapse (POP). However, intraoperative evaluation reveals greater apical prolapse than do POP-Q scores. There is a need to implement a method for performing POP-Q at the outpatient clinic that reveals maximal prolapse and causes the least pain. This study was performed to compare the degree of uterine prolapse between POP-Q with cervical traction and POP-Q in the standing position. Secondary objectives were to compare pain and acceptability scores between the two examinations.
methodsWomen with uterine prolapse stage I or II by routine examination were invited to participate. Comparison of degree of uterine prolapse, POP-Q stages, acceptability score, and pain score between the two types of examinations were undertaken.
resultsSeventy-eight participants were recruited. The median point C in routine POP-Q examination was -5 (-9 to +1), -0.5 (-3 to +4) with cervical traction, and -4 (-7 to +2) in the standing position. When examined with cervical traction, 61.5% women were upstaged by one and 9.0% by two compared with examination in the standing position; 39.7% reported visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores of ≥5 under examination with traction, but only 2.6% reported that level of pain in the standing position. There was no significant difference in acceptability scores between groups.
conclusionIn an outpatient clinic setting, POP-Q examination with cervical traction revealed maximal prolapse at an acceptable level of pain. Accordingly, this method is recommended for POP-Q examination.
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.