ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2020
Characteristics of opioid users undergoing surgery for pelvic organ prolapse.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Evaluation In-Hospital Opioid Usage for Minimally Invasive Repair of Pelvic Organ Prolapse.International urogynecology journal · 2026Article
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 hypothesisUnderstanding demographic and opioid utilization patterns of preoperative opioid users compared with opioid-naïve patients undergoing surgical treatment for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) better informs opioid prescribing.
methodsA cohort of preoperative opioid users undergoing surgery for POP from 1 January 2012 through 30 May 2017 was identified. Electronic medical records were utilized to obtain pain scores and prescription data. The cohort was organized by surgical approach, number of concomitant procedures, and patient age. These factors were then matched to pain scores, opioid quantity prescribed at discharge, and subsequent refills. Pain scores and opioid use were evaluated for correlation. Results were then compared with similar data previously published for opioid-naïve patients undergoing surgical treatment of POP.
resultsPreoperative opioid users were younger (55.5 [14.7] vs 59.5 [12.7]; p = 0.002), of higher body mass index (BMI; 29.2 [5.4] vs 28.6 [10.3]; p = 0.04), and less likely Caucasian (90.3% vs 95.9%; p = 0.002) than opioid-naïve patients. After matching for these differences, opioid users reported higher pain scores (3.5 [2.2] vs 2.6 [1.8]; p = <0.0001), but received similar opioid quantities (324.4 [395] vs 296 [158] oral morphine equivalents [OME]; p = 0.27; 16.8% vs 10.4% refill rates; p = 0.07). In preoperative opioid users, neither surgical approach nor the number of concomitant procedures influenced pain scores. Increasing mean pain scores (1.8 [2.0] to 4.2 [2.4]; p < 0.002) and OME prescribed (226 [170.2] to 541 [902.5] p = 0.056; 0% to 22.2% refill rates; p = 0.02), were seen with decreasing patient age. Pain scores correlated directly with the opioid amount prescribed.
conclusionsPatient age and preoperative opioid utilization should be factored into urogynecological postoperative opioid-prescribing protocols.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31989200What 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.