ArticleBMJ open2022
What is known from the existing literature about self-management of pessaries for pelvic organ prolapse? A scoping review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Barriers and facilitators to self-management of chronic conditions reported by women: a systematic review of qualitative studies.BMJ open · 2024Pooled it
- How Satisfied Are Women 6 Months after a Pessary Fitting for Pelvic Organ Prolapse?Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPelvic organ prolapse (POP) can be managed with a pessary; however, regular follow-up may deter women from pessary management due to the inconvenience of frequent appointments, as well as preventing pessary users from autonomous decision-making. Pessary self-management, whereby the woman removes and inserts her own pessary may be a solution to these issues. However, there remains a number of uncertainties regarding the potential benefits and risks of pessary self-management. This scoping review aims to map available evidence about the subject of pessary self-management for POP to identify knowledge gaps providing the basis for future research. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The scoping review will be conducted using the Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review methodology and reported in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. A search of Medline, CINAHL, Embase and PsycInfo will be undertaken to identify relevant articles which meet the eligibility criteria using the search terms 'pessary' and 'self-management' or 'self-care'. A hand search of the reference list of non-original research identified during the search but excluded, will be conducted for additional publications which meet the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data relevant to the topic of pessary self-management will be extracted and critical appraisal of all included publications undertaken. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethical or Health Research Authority approval is required to undertake the scoping review. However, it has been registered with The Open Science Framework (DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/DNGCP). The findings will inform future research exploring pessary self-management and be disseminated via both a presentation at a national conference and publications in peer reviewed journals.
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.