Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34607873›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2021

Protocol for a prospective multisite cohort study investigating hysterectomy versus uterine preservation for pelvic organ prolapse surgery: the HUPPS study.

Natalie V Scime, Kaylee Ramage, Erin A Brennand, Calgary Women’s Pelvic Health Research Group

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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.

NCT04890951 unknown statusnot on this map

Prospective Multi-site Cohort Study Investigating Hysterectomy Versus Uterine Preservation for Pelvic Organ Prolapse Surgery: The HUPPS Study

TypeobservationalSponsorUniversity of CalgaryRan2020 to 2024Enrolled321ConditionsPelvic Organ ProlapseArmsHysteropexy, Hysterectomy and vaginal vault suspension
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Natalie V ScimeDepartment of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary Cumming School of Medicine, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-5811-7661
Kaylee RamageDepartment of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary Cumming School of Medicine, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Erin A BrennandDepartment of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary Cumming School of Medicine, Calgary, Alberta, Canada erin.brennand@albertahealthservices.ca.ORCID 0000-0002-0500-6060
Calgary Women’s Pelvic Health Research Group
University of Calgary · CAAlberta Health Services · CA

Funding

CIHR
6 · The paper itself

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

Pelvic Organ ProlapseUterine ProlapseAged, 80 and overAlbertaCohort StudiesFemaleGynecologic Surgical ProceduresHumansHysterectomyProspective StudiesTreatment OutcomeVaginaepidemiologysurgeryurogynaecology

Identifiers

PMID34607873
PMCPMC8491422
OpenAlexW3204635080

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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.