Observational studyInternational urogynecology journal2021
How often should ring pessaries be removed or changed in women with advanced POP? A prospective observational study.
Observational study 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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pessaries for pelvic organ prolapse: evaluation of vaginal discharge and pain during pessary cleaning in an outpatient setting.International urogynecology journal · 2024Article
- The impact on complication rates of delayed routine pessary reviews during the COVID-19 pandemic.International urogynecology journal · 2023Article
- A randomized controlled study comparing the objective efficacy and safety of a novel self-inserted disposable vaginal prolapse device and existing ring pessaries.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
- Novel, disposable, self-inserted, vaginal device for the non-surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse: efficacy, safety, and quality of life.BMC women's health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisThis study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ring pessaries under continuous use for > 2 years. Our starting hypothesis was that their use without periodic removal, cleaning or replacement for between 24 to 48 months after insertion is safe and effective.
methodsThis was a prospective observational and descriptive study. One hundred one women who successfully completed the 24 first months of continuous use of a ring pessary were included and monitored for another 24 months. The objectives were to establish the percentage of patients maintaining its use 48 months after insertion, the reasons for discontinuation and the adverse events. Another purpose of this study was to determine the timing of replacement of the vaginal pessary in long-term users.
resultsOf the women, 92.1% (93/101) had successful pessary use, and it was discontinued by three patients (2.9%, 3/101); 76.2% (77/101) of the women continued pessary use after the end of the study, and in 16 (15.8%, 16/101) patients, after pessary removal, the prolapse disappeared and did not recur. Forty-five women (48.4%, 45/93) presented some adverse events that required temporary pessary removal. The most common one was an increase in vaginal discharge (73.3%, 33/45). In four women (8.9%, 4/45), the ring pessary was detected embedded in the vaginal epithelium.
conclusionsContinuous use of a ring pessary can be recommended for 2 years in hysterectomized women and for 4 years in non-hysterectomized women if there are no complications.
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.