ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2019
Treatment of vaginal vault prolapse in The Netherlands: a clinical practice survey.
Article 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 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Practice pattern variation: treatment of pelvic organ prolapse in The Netherlands.International urogynecology journal · 2022Pooled it
- Fear, Shame, and Miscommunication: A Qualitative Study on Treatment Choice for Pelvic Organ Prolapse.International urogynecology journal · 2026Article
- Gynecologists' perspectives on surgical treatment for apical prolapse: a qualitative study.International urogynecology journal · 2023Article
- Comparison of first versus second line sacrocolpopexies in terms of morbidity and mid-term efficacy.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Significant Improvement in Quality of Life, Positive Effect on Sexuality, Lasting Reconstructive Result and Low Rate of Complications Following Cystocele Correction Using a Lightweight, Large-Pore, Titanised Polypropylene Mesh: Final Results of a National, Multicentre Observational Study.Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde · 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
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisA great variety of conservative and surgical procedures to correct vaginal vault prolapse have been reported. The aim of this study was to describe practice pattern variation-the difference in care that cannot be explained by the underlying medical condition-among Dutch gynecologists regarding treatment of vaginal vault prolapse.
methodsA clinical practice survey was conducted from March to April 2017. The questionnaire was developed to evaluate treatment of vaginal vault prolapse. All members of the Dutch Society for Urogynaecology were invited to participate in a web-based survey.
resultsOne hundred four Dutch gynecologists with special interest in urogynecology responded to the survey (response rate, 44%). As first-choice therapy for vaginal vault prolapse, 78% of the respondents chose pessary treatment, whereas sacrospinous fixation was the second most common therapy choice according to 64% of the respondents. Preferences on how to approach vaginal vault prolapse surgically are conflicting. Overall, the most performed surgery for vaginal vault prolapse is sacrospinous fixation, followed by laparoscopic and robotic sacrocolpopexy.
conclusionsGynecologists in The Netherlands manage vaginal vault prolapse very differently. No standardized method could be determined for the treatment of vaginal vault prolapse in The Netherlands, and we observed practice pattern variations.
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.