Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32945903›Full record

ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2021

A service evaluation to determine where and who delivers pessary care in the UK.

Lucy Dwyer, Ellie Stewart, Azita Rajai

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International urogynecology journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 25% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. 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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Lucy DwyerSaint Mary's Hospital, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Hathersage Road, Manchester, M13 9WL, UK.
Ellie StewartDepartment of Gynaecology, West Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust, Hardwick Lane, Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk, IP33 2QZ, UK. ellie.stewart@wsh.nhs.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9515-5851
Azita RajaiCentre for Biostatistics, Division of Population Health, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Manchester Academic Health Science Centre · GBWest Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introduction and hypothesisPessaries offer effective conservative management for symptoms of pelvic organ prolapse and are frequently used in the UK. Previous publications have highlighted a lack of evidence-based pessary guidelines. There is also a dearth of evidence regarding who UK pessary practitioners are and the training received.

methodsA Freedom of Information request was sent to 167 healthcare organisations in the UK. Requested information included the number of pessaries inserted or changed, the grade and profession of pessary practitioners and training requirements at the organisation.

resultsResponses were received from 128 organisations. One hundred and ten had provided information for practitioners managing pessaries. At 66% (72) of organisations, pessary care was provided by both doctors and nurses of varying grades. At 23% of organisations either solely doctors or solely nurses provided pessary care. At the remaining 9% there was a multidisciplinary approach to pessary care. At 3 hospitals, unregistered healthcare professionals provided pessary care. At the majority of organisations, respondents undertook supervised practise to gain skills in pessary management. Additional methods of training cited were learning through observation or achieving set competencies. Twenty-six percent received didactic training. At 21% of organisations there were no training requirements.

conclusionsAt most organisations, there was a multidisciplinary approach to pessary care. It is questionable whether unregistered healthcare professionals should be delegated responsibility for pessary care. A standardised approach to pessary practitioner training is advocated to ensure that women receive safe, evidence-based pessary care. The UK Clinical Guidance Group for the Use of Pessaries in Vaginal Prolapse is currently developing national evidence-based guidelines to support pessary practitioners in their practice, including training requirements.

Indexed as

Pelvic Organ ProlapseUterine ProlapseFemaleHumansPessariesUnited KingdomPessaryPessary practitioner prolapseService evaluationTraining

Identifiers

PMID32945903
OpenAlexW3086997718

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.