ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2020
Perioperative peer support and surgical preparedness in women undergoing reconstructive pelvic surgery.
Article 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 3 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Validation of the Surgical Preparedness Assessment in women with pelvic floor disorders.International urogynecology journal · 2023Trial
- Cost Effectiveness of Additional Preoperative Telephone Call to Increase Surgical Preparedness: Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.International urogynecology journal · 2024Article
- Patient-Centered Goals for Treatment of Pelvic Floor Disorders.Current bladder dysfunction reports · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisThe benefits of peer support for pelvic floor disorders are unclear. We hypothesize that perioperative peer support might be associated with greater preoperative preparedness compared with usual care in women undergoing pelvic reconstruction.
methodsA multicenter prospective cohort study of women undergoing pelvic reconstruction compared peer support (group or one-to-one) with usual care. The primary outcome was preparedness, measured by a Preoperative Preparedness Questionnaire at baseline and before surgery. Assuming 48% preparedness in usual care preoperatively, 44 women per group (Group, One-to-One, or Usual care) would detect a 30% difference in preparedness (alpha = 0.05, 80% power). Chi-squared or Fisher's exact test compared categorical variables, t test and analysis of variance compared continuous variables, independent sample tests compared changes in mean or composite scores, and multiple logistic regression estimated the effect.
resultsOne hundred and sixty-eight patients were included (113 with peer support, 55 undergoing usual care). A greater proportion of women in peer support had college or higher education versus usual care (78 vs 58%, P = 0.02). After the intervention, the proportion of women feeling prepared was not different between groups (66 vs 63%, P = 0.9). However, a greater proportion in peer support reported improved preparedness from baseline compared with usual care (71 vs 44%, P = 0.001). Peer support was associated with improved preparedness on multiple regression adjusting for age, study site, education, and surgery type (OR 4.14, 95% CI 1.69, 10.14).
conclusionPeer support was associated with improved preoperative preparedness compared with usual care, but did not result in a greater proportion of women feeling prepared before surgery.
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.