ArticleBMJ open2021
Protocol for a prospective multisite cohort study investigating hysterectomy versus uterine preservation for pelvic organ prolapse surgery: the HUPPS study.
Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04890951 (Prospective Multi-site Cohort Study Investigating Hysterectomy Versus Uterine Preservation for Pelvic Organ Prolapse Surgery), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 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.
Prospective Multi-site Cohort Study Investigating Hysterectomy Versus Uterine Preservation for Pelvic Organ Prolapse Surgery: The HUPPS Study
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Uterine Prolapse Across the Female Lifespan: Clinical Insights and Practical Considerations from Greece.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2025Article
- Age and postoperative opioid use in women undergoing pelvic organ prolapse surgery.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2023Article
- A qualitative study of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on women seeking pelvic organ prolapse surgery in Alberta, Canada.Health & social care in the community · 2022Article
- Factors affecting women's decision between uterine-preserving versus hysterectomy-based surgery for pelvic organ prolapse.Women's health (London, England)Article
- A longitudinal, qualitative exploration of women's sexual recovery following surgical repair of pelvic organ prolapse.Women's health (London, England)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionPelvic organ prolapse (POP) is the descent of pelvic organs into the vagina resulting in bulge symptoms and occurs in approximately 50% of women. Almost 20% of women will elect surgical correction of this condition by age 85. Removal of the uterus (hysterectomy) with concomitant vaginal vault suspension is a long-standing practice in POP surgery to address apical (uterine) prolapse. Yet, contemporary evidence on the merits of this approach relative to preservation of the uterus through suspension is needed to better inform surgical decision making by patients and their healthcare providers. The objective of this study is to evaluate POP-specific health outcomes and service utilisation of women electing uterine suspension compared with those electing hysterectomy and vaginal vault suspension for POP surgery up to 1-year postsurgery. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a prospective cohort study planning to enrol 321 adult women with stage ≥2 POP from multiple sites in Alberta, Canada. Following standardised counselling from study surgeons, participants self-select either a hysterectomy based or uterine preservation surgical group. Data are being collected through participant questionnaires, medical records and administrative data linkage at four time points spanning from the presurgical consultation to 1-year postsurgery. The primary outcome is anatomic failure to correct POP, and secondary outcomes include changes in positioning of pelvic structures, retreatment, subjective report of bulge symptoms, pelvic floor distress and impact, sexual function and health service use. Data will be analysed using inverse probability weighting of propensity scores and generalised linear models. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study is approved by the Conjoint Health Research Ethics Board at the University of Calgary (REB19-2134). Results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publications, presentations at national and international conferences, and educational handouts for patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04890951.
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.