ArticleBMJ open2020
Non-absorbable versus absorbable sutures for anterior colporrhaphy: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial in South Korea.
Article in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03736811 (Nonabsorbable Versus Absorbable Sutures for Anterior Colporrhaphy), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
Nonabsorbable Versus Absorbable Sutures for Anterior Colporrhaphy: a Randomized Controlled Trial
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe anterior vaginal wall is the segment most commonly affected by prolapse. Traditionally, anterior vaginal wall prolapse is repaired via anterior colporrhaphy, which is known to have a high recurrence rate. Several factors might affect the outcome of anterior colporrhaphy, and the use of absorbable sutures might also be associated with the high recurrence rate because the sutures might not be able to retain adequate strength until the plicated pubocervical fascia remodels and regains maximum tensile strength. Nonetheless, no comparative data exist about the relative efficacy and safety of anterior colporrhaphy using non-absorbable versus absorbable sutures. The objective of this study is to compare the surgical outcomes of anterior colporrhaphy using non-absorbable sutures with those of anterior colporrhaphy using absorbable sutures. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a randomised, multicentre, superiority trial. Anterior colporrhaphy will be performed in a traditional manner with midline plication of the fibromuscular layer using either non-absorbable or absorbable sutures. The primary outcome is composite surgical success 1 year after surgery defined as the absence of all of the following: (1) anterior vaginal descent beyond the hymen, (2) the presence of vaginal bulge symptoms and (3) retreatment for recurrent anterior vaginal wall prolapse with either surgery or pessary. The secondary outcomes include the individual components of the composite primary end point, anatomical outcomes, condition-specific quality of life and adverse events related to anterior colporrhaphy. The planned number of participants is 192. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Seoul National University Hospital (H-1810-037-977). The results of the study will be published in peer-reviewed journals, and the findings will be presented at scientific meetings. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03736811.
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.