Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34977951›Full record

ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2022

International Urogynaecology Consultation chapter 1 committee 4: patients' perception of disease burden of pelvic organ prolapse.

Dudley Robinson, Lisa T Prodigalidad, Symphorosa Chan, Maurizio Serati, Svjetlana Lozo, Jerry Lowder, Chiara Ghetti, Kathie Hullfish, Suzanne Hagen, Chantal Dumoulin

Open access · greenAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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 21 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.8field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Factors contributing to long-term vaginal pessary use: A mixed-methods study.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

10 authors at 8 institutions in 7 countries.

Dudley RobinsonDepartment of Urogynaecology, Kings College Hospital, London, UK. dudley.robinson@nhs.net.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4879-6672
Lisa T ProdigalidadDivision of Urogynaecology and Pelvic Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of the Philippines - College of Medicine, Philippine General Hospital, Manila, Philippines.
Symphorosa ChanDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Prince of Wales Hospital, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Sha Tin, Hong Kong.
Maurizio SeratiUniversity of Insubria, Varese, Italy.
Svjetlana LozoFemale Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, Columbia University Medical Centre, New York, NY, USA.
Jerry LowderFemale Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Washington University, St Louis, MO, USA.
Chiara GhettiFemale Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO, USA.
Kathie HullfishDepartments of Obstetrics/Gynaecology and Urology, Division Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, UVA Health System, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
Suzanne HagenNursing, Midwifery and Allied Health Professionals Research Unit, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, Scotland.
Chantal DumoulinCanadian Research Chair in Urogynaecological Health and Aging, University of Montreal, Montreal, Canada.
Institute for Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery · USChinese University of Hong Kong · HKGlasgow Caledonian University · GBKing's College - North Carolina · USPhilippine General Hospital · PHUniversité de Montréal · CAUniversity of Insubria · ITUniversity of Virginia Health System · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introduction and hypothesisThis manuscript from Chapter 1 of the International Urogynecology Consultation (IUC) on Pelvic Organ Prolapse (POP) reports on the patients' perception of disease burden associated with pelvic organ prolapse. MATERIALS AND

methodsAn international group containing a team of eight urogynaecologists, a physiotherapist and a statistician performed a search of the literature using pre-specified search terms in PubMed and Embase (January 2000 to August 2020). The division of sections within this report includes: (1) perception of POP and the relationship with body image and poor health; (2) a vaginal bulge as it impacts health and wellbeing in women; (3) the impact of POP on sexual life; (4) body image and pelvic floor disorders; (5) POP and mood; (6) appropriate use of treatment goals to better meet patients' expected benefits; (7) using health-related quality of life questionnaires to quantify patients' perception of POP; (8) The financial burden of POP to patients and society. Abstracts were reviewed and publications were eliminated if not relevant or did not include populations with POP or were not relevant to the subject areas as noted by the authors. The manuscripts were next reviewed for suitability using the Specialist Unit for Review Evidence (SURE) checklists for cohort, cross-sectional and case-control epidemiologic studies.

resultsThe original individual literature searches yielded 2312 references of which 190 were used in the final manuscript. The following perceptions were identified: (1) women were found to have varying perceptions of POP including shame and embarrassment. Some regard POP as consequence of aging and consider there is no effective therapy. (2) POP is perceived as a vaginal bulge and affects lifestyle and emotional wellbeing. The main driver for treatment is absence of bulge sensation. (3) POP is known to affect frequency of sexual intercourse but has less impact on satisfaction. (4) Prolapse-specific body image and genital self-image are important components of a women's emotional, physical and sexual wellbeing. (5) POP is commonly associated with depression and anxiety symptoms which impact HRQoL although are not correlated with objective anatomical findings. (6) Patient-centered treatment goals are useful in facilitating communication, shared decision-making and expectations before and after reconstructive surgery. (7) Disease-specific HRQoL questionnaires are important tools to assess bother and outcome following surgery, and there are now several tools with Level 1 evidence and a Grade A recommendation. (8) The cost of POP to the individual and to society is considerable in terms of productivity. In general, conservative measures tend to be more cost-effective than surgical intervention.

conclusionsPatients' perception of POP varies in different patients and has a far-reaching impact on their overall state of health and wellbeing. However, recognizing that it is a combination of body image and overall health (which affects mental health) allows clinicians to better tailor expectations for treatment to individual patients. There are HRQoL tools that can be used to quantify these impacts in clinical care and research. The costs to the individual patient (which affects their perception of POP) is an area that is poorly understood and needs more research.

Indexed as

Pelvic Organ ProlapseQuality of LifeBody ImageCost of IllnessCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansReferral and ConsultationBody imageExpectationsGoalsPelvic organ prolapseProductivitySexual function

Identifiers

PMID34977951
OpenAlexW4205803783

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.