Observational studyInternational urogynecology journal2020
Is it safe and effective to maintain the vaginal pessary without removing it for 2 consecutive years?
Observational study 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 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- The impact on complication rates of delayed routine pessary reviews during the COVID-19 pandemic.International urogynecology journal · 2023Article
- Adapting to Challenging Circumstances: Pessary Care in a Racially Diverse Urban Population Within a U.S. Epicenter of the COVID-19 Pandemic.Female pelvic medicine & reconstructive surgery · 2022Article
- Cross sectional study on assessment of ring pessary cleaning and removal every six months: adverse events and complications.International urogynecology journal · 2022Article
- Pessaries and rectovaginal fistulae: consequences of delayed clinical follow-up in the Covid-19 pandemic.International urogynecology journal · 2021Article
- A guide for urogynecologic patient care utilizing telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic: review of existing evidence.International urogynecology journal · 2020Review
- [How did COVID-19 pandemic change the way we attend the patients in an urogynaecological unit].Clinica e investigacion en ginecologia y obstetriciaReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisThe study was aimed at evaluating the safety and efficacy of ring pessaries without support under continuous use without periodic removal or replacement for the treatment of advanced pelvic organ prolapse (POP) in women for 2 consecutive years.
methodsThis study was a prospective observational study. A total of 123 women were recruited in a tertiary hospital from January 2013 to January 2016. The primary objective was the percentage of patients maintaining the use of the pessary after 24 months. The secondary objectives were the reasons for discontinuation and the adverse events in patients with successful fittings.
resultsA total of 115 patients (93.5%) had a successful fitting. Four patients died of non-pessary-related causes during the study and, one patient dropped out the follow-up so that finally, 110 patients were included in the efficacy analysis. Pessary use was maintained by 91.8% of the women at the end of the study. The adverse events rate was low (27.0%). The two main factors of interruption in the pessary use were: age (OR 0.93; 95% CI 0.87-0.99) and history of urinary urge incontinence (OR 0.33; 95% CI 0.11-0.96]).
conclusionsA high success rate and low adverse events rate were achieved in patients with advanced-stage POP with continuous pessary use for 24 months, indicating that a ring pessary could also be used without periodic removal for at least the first 2 years. This practice could reduce the number of control visits.
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.