ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2022
Position and orientation of vaginal pessaries in situ on magnetic resonance imaging.
Article in International urogynecology journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Automated Motion Tracking of Vaginal Pessaries and Pelvic Floor Structures on Dynamic MRI.International urogynecology journal · 2026Article
- Updates in Pessary Care for Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Analysing the support mechanisms of the vaginal ring pessary on supine and upright MRI.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Patient-Specific Pessaries for Pelvic Organ Prolapse Using Three-Dimensional Printing: A Pilot Study.Urogynecology (Philadelphia, Pa.) · 2023Article
- Location and motion of vaginal pessaries in situ in women with successful and unsuccessful pessary treatment for pelvic organ prolapse.International urogynecology journal · 2023Article
- Pelvic inclination correction system for magnetic resonance imaging analysis of pelvic organ prolapse in upright position.International urogynecology journal · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisWe hypothesize that there are differences in the position and orientation of ring and Gellhorn pessaries in situ on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).
methodsThis was a retrospective cohort study comparing MRI findings in 25 women with pessaries in situ at the time of imaging. Scanner coordinates for anatomic and pessary landmarks were obtained and transformed to 3D Pelvic Inclination Correction System coordinates using MATLAB software. The normal vector to the pessary disc was computed and compared to the positive y-axis in the sagittal and coronal planes to determine XY and YZ disc angles, respectively. Comparisons between groups were made using Wilcoxon rank, Fisher's exact, and Brown-Forsythe tests.
resultsTwenty-one women with ring pessaries and four women with Gellhorn pessaries met inclusion criteria for the study. Women with ring pessaries were younger (68.4 vs. 80.7 years, p = 0.003) but had similar BMI, vaginal parity, history of hysterectomy, and anatomic characteristics. Ring pessaries had a smaller diameter (59.5 vs. 79.3 mm, p = 0.004) and were positioned further posterior with respect to the inferior pubic point (midpoint X position 42.6 vs. 29.5 mm, p = 0.004). There were significant differences in the magnitude and variance of the XY disc angle (57.0 ± 14.0 vs. -1.2 ± 2.8 degrees, p = 0.002 for magnitude, p = 0.012 for variance) but not the YZ disc angle (3.3 ± 30.6 vs. 1.5 ± 7.7 degrees, p > 0.05 for both) between groups.
conclusionsWe found differences in the position and orientation between ring and Gellhorn pessaries in situ using an anatomic 3D reference system. These findings provide insight into the mechanism of action of vaginal pessaries.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34132867What 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.