Trial reportInternational urogynecology journal2020
Preoperative predictors and a prediction score for perception of improvement after mesh prolapse surgery.
Trial report in International urogynecology journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The Interplay Between Chronic Pelvic Pain and Pelvic Organ Prolapse.International urogynecology journal · 2025Pooled it
- How Can We Improve the Assessment and Indifferent Outcomes From Pelvic Organ Prolapse Management From Conservative and Surgical Therapies? ICI-RS 2025.Neurourology and urodynamics · 2026Review
- Do Surgeons Anticipate Women's Hopes and Fears Associated with Prolapse Repair? A Qualitative Analysis in the PROSPERE Trial.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Female pelvic floor dysfunction questionnaires: the modern Tower of Babel?International urogynecology journal · 2020Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisPelvic organ prolapse (POP) surgery using a mesh has a complication rate of 26%, and an estimated 10% of those operated on do not consider it brings improvement. The objective of this study was to identify preoperative predictors of improvement after POP repair with mesh to develop a predictive score.
methodsThis is a secondary analysis of the randomized multicenter trial PROSPERE, which compared morbidity after prolapse repair with mesh according to the vaginal or laparoscopic approach. Improved women [PGI-I score at 1-year follow-up = 1 (much better) or 2 (better)] were compared with unimproved women. Two hundred fifty-five women were included to derive the prediction score based on multiple logistic regression. An internal validation by bootstrapping estimated the unbiased performance of the model.
resultsCriteria independently related to improvement were: (1) cystocele stage > II [OR: 2.93 95% CI (1.22-7.04), p = 0.015]; (2) preoperative expectation related to bulge symptom improvement [OR: 2.57 95% CI (1.07-6.04), p = 0.031] and (3) absence of chronic pelvic pain [OR: 4.55 95% CI (1.77-11.46), p = 0.001]. A score (scored from 0 to 11) was constructed from the aOR of the predictive model: the ROC-AUC of the score was 0.75, and a score ≥ 9 predicted a 97% chance of improvement (95% CI 92-99), with a specificity of 85% (95% CI 68-94). The ROC-AUC corrected for optimism by the bootstrap procedure was 0.70.
conclusionsThis score could be used by surgeons in preoperative counseling of women.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31115611What 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.