Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31773199›Full record

Trial reportInternational urogynecology journal2020

Bowel preparation prior to minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy: a randomized controlled trial.

Jessica C Sassani, Kelly Kantartzis, Liwen Wu, Anthony Fabio, Halina M Zyczynski

Open access · greenAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

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 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 34% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Perioperative interventions in pelvic organ prolapse surgery.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jessica C SassaniDivision of Urogynecology, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Magee-Womens Hospital, 300 Halket Street, Pittsburgh, PA, 15218, USA. sassanijc@upmc.edu.ORCID 0000-0001-6488-9804
Kelly KantartzisBanner University Medical Center, University of Arizona, Phoenix, AZ, USA.
Liwen WuDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Anthony FabioEpidemiology Data Center, Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Halina M ZyczynskiDivision of Urogynecology, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Magee-Womens Hospital, 300 Halket Street, Pittsburgh, PA, 15218, USA.
University of Pittsburgh · USBanner - University Medical Center Tucson · US

Funding

University of Pittsburgh Clinical and Translational Science InstituteUL1TR001857 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI REIS, STEVEN E · 2016 to 2025
$129.3M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001857NIH HHS UL1TR001857
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introduction and hypothesisThe objective was to determine if a bowel preparation prior to minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy (MIS) influences post-operative constipation symptoms. We hypothesized that women who underwent a bowel preparation would have an improvement in post-operative defecatory function.

methodsIn this randomized controlled trial, women undergoing MIS received a pre-operative bowel preparation or no bowel preparation. Our primary outcome was post-operative constipation measured by the Patient Assessment of Constipation Symptoms (PAC-SYM) 2 weeks post-operatively. Secondary outcomes included surgeon's perception of case difficulty. Both intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol analyses (PPA) were performed. Analyses were carried out using t test, Fisher's exact test, the Wilcoxon test and the Chi-squared test.

resultsOf 105 enrolled women, 95 completed follow-up (43 preparation and 52 no preparation). Baseline characteristics and rates of complications were similar. No differences were noted on ITT. The post-operative abdominal PAC-SYM subscale was closer to baseline for women who received a bowel preparation on PPA (change in score 0.74 vs 1.08, p = 0.045). Women who underwent a preparation were less likely to report strain (6.0% vs 26.7%, p = 0.009) or type 1 Bristol stool on their first post-operative bowel movement (4.3% vs 17.5%, p = 0.047). Surgeons were more likely to rate the complexity of the case as "more difficult than average" (54.4% vs 40.1%, p = 0.027) in those without a bowel preparation.

conclusionsAlthough there was no difference in ITT analysis, women who underwent a bowel preparation prior to MIS demonstrated benefit to post-operative defecatory function with a corresponding improvement in surgeon's perception of case complexity.

Indexed as

ConstipationFemaleHumansPostoperative PeriodTreatment OutcomeBowel prepConstipationPAC-SYMPelvic organ prolapseSacrocolpopexy

Identifiers

PMID31773199
PMCPMC7247935
OpenAlexW2990528709

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.