ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2021
Symptomatic and anatomic improvement of pelvic organ prolapse in vaginal pessary users.
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 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical and cost-effectiveness of pessary self-management versus clinic-based care for pelvic organ prolapse in women: the TOPSY RCT with process evaluation.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2024Trial
- A randomized clinical trial comparing internal and external pessaries in the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse in postmenopausal women: A pilot study.Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2024Trial
- Primary Treatment of Pelvic Organ Prolapse in Women Aged Over 80 Years: Pessary Versus Surgery.International urogynecology journal · 2026Article
- Updates in Pessary Care for Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- International Urogynecology Consultation Chapter 3 Committee 1 - Pessary Management.International urogynecology journal · 2025Review
- Clinically significant changes in anal sphincter hiatal area in patients with gestational diabetes mellitus and pelvic organ prolapse.World journal of diabetes · 2024Article
- Quality of Life Following Pelvic Organ Prolapse Treatments in Women: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
- Predictors for long-term adherence to vaginal pessary in pelvic organ prolapse: a prospective study.International urogynecology journal · 2022Observational
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisThe vaginal pessary is a conservative method for treating pelvic organ prolapse (POP). It is able to reduce symptoms with minimal complications, improving quality of life (QOL). This study's hypothesis was that the use of pessaries decreases quantitative measures and improves women's QOL. We aimed to evaluate the effects of the use of a ring pessary on the quantitative measurements of POP by the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) and on QOL.
methodsProspective cohort study divided in two stages. In stage I POP-Q and QOL were assessed prior to the use of the ring pessary and in stage II after its use for at least 4 months with pessary removal 72 h before clinical evaluation. Wilcoxon tests were performed for necessary comparisons and Spearman's tests for calculating correlations.
resultsOne hundred thirty-six women were evaluated, of which 50 were included. There was a decrease in POP in at least one of the vaginal compartments in the women included. When assessing individual measures (Ba, Bp and C), reductions in all measures were observed. There was also an improvement in the general and specific quality of life of women.
conclusionThe ring pessary proved to be a good therapeutic option, with a reduction in POP-Q measurements and/or absence of POP progression in the short term and an improvement in women's QOL.
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.