Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36030181›Full record

SynthesisSexual medicine reviews2022

Systematic Review of Comparisons Between Plastic and Silicone Dilators: Revealing a Knowledge Gap.

Orly Morgan, Mariana Duenas Lopez, Alberto J Caban Martinez, Deborah C Marshall, Julie B Schnur

Open access · greenAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Sexual medicine reviews, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 26% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Orly MorganUniversity of Miami, Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL, USA; University of Miami, Department of Public Health Sciences, Miami, FL, USA. Electronic address: oxm229@med.miami.edu.
Mariana Duenas LopezLewis Katz School of Medicine, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Alberto J Caban MartinezUniversity of Miami, Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL, USA; University of Miami, Department of Public Health Sciences, Miami, FL, USA.
Deborah C MarshallIcahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, Department of Population Health Science and Policy, New York City, NY, USA; Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, Department of Radiation Oncology, New York City, NY, USA.
Julie B SchnurLewis Katz School of Medicine, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Temple University · USUniversity of Miami · USIcahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai · US

Funding

Novel Functional Anatomic and Biomarker Indices of Radiation-Induced Female Sexual Toxicities in a Multi-Center CohortDP5OD031876 · OD · ICAHN SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AT MOUNT SINAI · PI MARSHALL, DEBORAH CATHERINE · 2021 to 2025
$2.1M
Training Cancer Care Providers to Implement Sensitive Practice Guidelines When Treating Adult Survivors of Sexual Violence: A Blended Learning ApproachR25CA236636 · NCI · ICAHN SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AT MOUNT SINAI · PI Julie B. Schnur · 2019 to 2026
$1.4M
NCI NIH HHS R25 CA236636NIH HHS DP5 OD031876
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionVaginal stenosis is a distressing side effect of radiation therapy that can impair quality of life. Dilator therapy is an option for patients undergoing pelvic radiotherapy to mitigate vaginal stenosis. Currently, the dilators given to patients by most hospitals are made of plastic, compared to silicone dilators which are available on the market for purchase.

objectivesWe conducted a systematic literature review to find information to guide clinical recommendations to pelvic radiotherapy patients on potential differences regarding the use of plastic vs silicone dilators with regard to efficacy, cost, and patient preferences.

methodsA systematic literature review was conducted in Embase, MEDLINE, and PubMed using Emtree terms. To be included in the review, papers needed to: focus on female patients undergoing radiation therapy, assess a vaginal dilator, measure any dilator intervention outcome, and specifically compare plastic vs silicone dilators for any measured outcome (either qualitative or quantitative).

resultsThe initial search yielded 195 articles. Two area experts, with a third expert for arbitration, read each article and found that none met all review inclusion criteria. No studies were found that compared silicone to plastic dilators with regard to efficacy in treating vaginal stenosis due to radiation therapy, no studies were found that compared cost or cost-effectiveness of the 2 dilator types, and no studies were found comparing patient preferences or experiences (eg, comfort, adherence, ease of use) between the 2 dilator types.

conclusionThe materials used to create dilators have never been rigorously compared in the context of radiotherapy-related vaginal stenosis. Institutions and patients have no data to guide their choice. Significantly more research at the patient and institutional level is needed to explore the potential long-term quality of life and cost benefits of improved adherence with silicone dilator use, and to guide shared decision-making regarding dilator choice. Morgan O, Lopez MD, Martinez AJC, et al. Systematic Review of Comparisons Between Plastic and Silicone Dilators: Revealing a Knowledge Gap. Sex Med Rev 2022;10:513-519.

Indexed as

SiliconesVaginaConstriction, PathologicFemaleHumansPlasticsQuality of LifePlasticsSiliconesDyspareuniaRadiotherapySexual DysfunctionVaginal Dilator

Identifiers

PMID36030181
PMCPMC9561033
OpenAlexW4293007349

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.