ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2019
A longitudinal qualitative evaluation of patient perspectives of adverse events after pelvic reconstructive surgery.
Article in International urogynecology journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05342090 (Randomized Controlled Trial of Standardized Counselling on Postoperative Return to Sexual Activity After Pelvic Reconstructive Surgery), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 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.
Randomized Controlled Trial of Standardized Counselling on Postoperative Return to Sexual Activity After Pelvic Reconstructive Surgery
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Patient experiences following prolapse surgery implementing a same-day discharge model: a prospective study.International urogynecology journal · 2023Article
- Patient perceptions of urgency of their pelvic floor disorders during the COVID-19 pandemic.International urogynecology journal · 2023Article
- AUGS-PERFORM: A New Patient-Reported Outcome Measure to Assess Quality of Prolapse Care.Female pelvic medicine & reconstructive surgery · 2022Article
- Patient-Centered Goals for Treatment of Pelvic Floor Disorders.Current bladder dysfunction reports · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisPatient perception of adverse events (AEs) after pelvic floor disorder surgery is incompletely understood and may differ from providers' views of AEs. Our objective is to describe patient perceptions of AEs related to pelvic floor disorder surgery and how perceptions change over time.
methodsMixed-method study of longitudinal patient interviews and surveys. Women planning pelvic floor disorder surgery completed three one-on-one interviews: preoperatively (< 12 weeks before surgery), 6-8 weeks postoperatively, and 6 months postoperatively. Interviews explored the patient experience of surgery and their perception of AEs over time. Participants ranked self-identified AEs by severity. De-identified transcripts of audio recordings were coded and analyzed using an iterative, thematic, team-based process using NVivo software (QSR International).
resultsTwenty women each completed three separate interviews for a total of 60 interviews. Their mean age was 55.3 (± 12.7) years, and 50% were Non-Hispanic white. Women's perceptions of AEs changed as more time passed from surgery. Women identified potential problems related to surgery such as anesthesia complications, pain, injury, catheter issues, and an unsuccessful surgery as the most concerning AEs preoperatively. Postoperatively (6-8 weeks), women expressed concern about functional outcomes (e.g., performing daily activities, symptom reduction). Late postoperatively (6 months), the majority identified unsuccessful surgery, incontinence, and sexual dysfunction as severe AEs. These findings are consistent with prior work that suggests women perceive functional outcomes as fundamental to their recovery.
conclusionsThese findings contribute to a more nuanced understanding of patient-centered perspectives on AEs. Patients view poor functional outcomes as severe AEs.
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.