ArticleOpen medicine (Warsaw, Poland)2022
The effect evaluation of traditional vaginal surgery and transvaginal mesh surgery for severe pelvic organ prolapse: 5 years follow-up.
Article in Open medicine (Warsaw, Poland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Precision in Practice: The Critical Role of Mesh and Procedure Type Specification in Urogynecological Surgeries and Research.International urogynecology journal · 2024Article
- 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The objective of this study was to compare the clinical effectiveness of traditional vaginal surgery and transvaginal mesh (TVM) surgery on severe pelvic organ prolapse (POP). We performed a retrospective chart review study of 258 severe POP patients who underwent surgery between November 2010 and September 2016. One hundred forty patients underwent traditional vaginal surgery and 118 TVM surgery. The Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantitation (POP-Q) staging was used for objective evaluation. The Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-20 (PFDI-20), Pelvic Floor Disease Life Impact Questionnaire Simplified Version-7 (PFIQ-7), and Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Incontinence Sexual Function Questionnaire (PISQ-12) were used for subjective evaluation. Their complications were also recorded. All the data were collected in the outpatient department through the follow-up at 3 months, 1, 3, and 5 years after the operation. Forty patients in the traditional vaginal surgery group and 25 in the TVM group were lost to follow-up. There was no difference in the POP-Q score between the groups (
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.