ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2020
Addressing apical support during hysterectomy for prolapse: a NSQIP review.
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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation and Management of Recurrent Pelvic Organ Prolapse.Current urology reports · 2025Review
- Transcriptomic analysis revealsZhong nan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Central South University. Medical sciences · 2024Article
- What We Know about the Long-Term Risks of Hysterectomy for Benign Indication-A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo describe national practice patterns regarding apical support procedures at time of hysterectomy for prolapse prior to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) 2017 Practice Bulletin on pelvic organ prolapse.
methodsThis retrospective descriptive study analyzed 24 months of data from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database, from 2015 and 2016. Patients undergoing hysterectomy for the indication of pelvic organ prolapse were included. Surgical details, diagnostic codes, subspecialty, patient demographics, and postoperative complications were collected. Comparisons were conducted between those who did and did not undergo apical support procedures. Further comparisons, including logistic regressions, were performed using subspecialty designation.
resultsDuring the study period, 3458 hysterectomies were performed for the indication of pelvic organ prolapse. Of this population, 76% were White, with an average age of 61 years, BMI of 27.6, and parity of 2, and 90.5% carried the diagnosis of apical prolapse. Slightly over half (51.8%) had a concurrent procedure to support the vaginal apex. When performed by Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery (FPMRS) physicians, 65.7% underwent an apical suspension at time of hysterectomy for prolapse compared with 40.2% of non-FPMRS (p < 0.001). Annual rates of apical support procedures showed significant improvement from 49.5% in 2015 to 55.2% in 2016 (P < 0.001). Regarding surgical data, addition of apical support procedures increased operative time by 33 min, and reoperation was 1.3% higher (0.3% vs 1.6%).
conclusionOur results demonstrate that in the 2 years prior to ACOG's recommendation only 51.8% of women undergoing hysterectomy for pelvic organ prolapse received concurrent procedures to address apical support.
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.