Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30159720›Full record

Trial reportInternational urogynecology journal2019

Partially absorbable mesh or native tissue repair for pelvic organ prolapse: a randomized controlled trial.

Pieternel Steures, Alfredo L Milani, Deliana A van Rumpt-van de Geest, Kirsten B Kluivers, Mariëlla I J Withagen

Open access · hybridAbstract readComparative StudyMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in International urogynecology journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Transvaginal mesh or grafts or native tissue repair for vaginal prolapse.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Pieternel SteuresDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Reinier de Graaf Gasthuis, Delft, The Netherlands. Pieternelsteures@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-1702-8021
Alfredo L MilaniDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Reinier de Graaf Gasthuis, Delft, The Netherlands.
Deliana A van Rumpt-van de GeestDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Reinier de Graaf Gasthuis, Delft, The Netherlands.
Kirsten B KluiversDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Kirsten.Kluivers@radboudumc.nl.
Mariëlla I J WithagenDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Reinier de Graaf Hospital · NLRadboud University Nijmegen · NLUniversity Medical Center Utrecht · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introduction and hypothesisThe objective was to compare medium-term efficacy and safety of a partially absorbable mesh kit and native tissue repair in pelvic organ prolapse (POP). MATERIALS AND

methodsWomen with primary POP stage ≥ II were randomized to transvaginal trocar-guided partially absorbable mesh (81 women) or native tissue repair (82 women). Primary outcome was overall anatomical success (POP < stage II) at 24 months. Secondary outcomes were composite success, global improvement, and adverse events.

resultsSixty-nine (85%) of the women allocated to partially absorbable mesh underwent mesh surgery; 8 (10%) crossed over to native tissue repair and 4 women (5%) withdrew from the study. Eighty (98%) of the women allocated to native tissue repair underwent the assigned treatment and 2 (2%) withdrew. Twenty-four months later, 140 surgically treated women (89%) demonstrated an overall anatomical success of 39%; 45% (32 out of 71 women) for mesh, and 32% (22 out of 69) for native tissue repair (RR 1.4, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.2). Composite success was 88 and 73% respectively (RR: 1.1, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.4). There was global improvement in 86% (48 out of 56 women) in the mesh group and in 77% (47 out of 60 women) in the native tissue group (RR: 1.1, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.3). Four women were diagnosed with mesh exposure at 2 years (6%).

conclusionAt 24 months, no significant anatomical or composite benefit of partially absorbable mesh over native tissue repair could be demonstrated in women who had been surgically treated for primary POP.

Indexed as

Absorbable ImplantsSurgical MeshAgedFemaleFollow-Up StudiesGynecologic Surgical ProceduresHumansMiddle AgedPelvic Organ ProlapsePostoperative ComplicationsReoperationSexual BehaviorSuturesTreatment OutcomeVaginaAdverse eventsAnatomical successComposite outcomeNative tissue repairPartially absorbable meshPelvic organ prolapsePrimary

Identifiers

PMID30159720
PMCPMC6450832
OpenAlexW2888950651

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.