Observational studyInternational urogynecology journal2022
Pessary fitting for pelvic organ prolapse: parameters associated with specific reasons for failure.
Observational study 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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Effect of Pessary Insertion on Pelvic Anatomy: A Prospective Observational Study Using Upright MRI.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2026Observational
- Proof of concept 3D ultrasound strain imaging measuring effect of a ring pessary on avulsed puborectal muscle.Communications medicine · 2025Article
- Explorative Identification of Anatomical Parameters Associated with Successful Pessary Fitting in Pelvic Organ Prolapse Using Dynamic Magnetic Resonance Imaging.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- A commentary on "Pessary fitting for pelvic organ prolapse: parameters associated with specific reasons for failure".International urogynecology journal · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisThe objective was to assess if specific reasons for unsuccessful pessary fitting have different predictive parameters.
methodsThis is a prospective observational case-control study of women with symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse (POP) choosing pessary treatment. All women underwent an interview, clinical examination, and 3D/4D transperineal ultrasound (TPUS). Groups were defined based on fitting outcome: successful, pessary dislodgment, failure to relieve POP symptoms, pain/discomfort, increased/de novo urinary incontinence, or other reasons. Clinical, demographic, and TPUS parameters were assessed in the prediction of different reasons for unsuccessful fitting and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were constructed.
resultsA total of 162 women were assessed and 130 were included. Levator hiatal area (HA) on maximum Valsalva divided by ring pessary size ("Valsalva HARP ratio") was a predictor of unsuccessful fitting (OR 3.00, 95% CI 1.15-7.81, p = 0.025) with an area under the ROC curve (AUC) of 0.62 (95% CI 0.50-0.74, p = 0.04). Predictors of pessary dislodgment were: complete avulsion (OR 24.20, 95% CI 2.46-237.84, p value 0.01) and Valsalva HARP ratio (OR 2.94, 95% CI 1.32-6.55, p value 0.01) with an area under the ROC curve (AUC) of 0.92 (95% CI 0.84-0.99, p = 0.00). No significant parameter was identified in the prediction of pain/discomfort. Solitary predominant posterior compartment POP was a predictor of failure to relieve POP symptoms (OR 20.00, 95% CI 3.48-115.02, p value 0.00; AUC 0.75, 95% CI 0.53-0.98, p = 0.03).
conclusionComplete avulsion and a small ring pessary with respect to the levator HA in Valsalva are predictors of pessary dislodgment, whereas solitary predominant posterior compartment POP is a predictor of failure to relieve POP symptoms.
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.