Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36043332›Full record

ArticleBJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology2023

Patient's preference for sacrospinous hysteropexy or modified Manchester operation: A discrete choice experiment.

Sascha F M Schulten, Brigitte Essers, Kim J B Notten, Rosa A Enklaar, Sanne A L van Leijsen, Hugo W F van Eijndhoven, Kirsten B Kluivers, Mirjam Weemhoff

Open access · greenAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Sascha F M SchultenDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Radboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-0958-1422
Brigitte EssersDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology and Medical Technology Assessment, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-7703-7114
Kim J B NottenDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-9107-4974
Rosa A EnklaarDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Radboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-1547-4757
Sanne A L van LeijsenDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Máxima Medical Centre Veldhoven, Veldhoven, The Netherlands.
Hugo W F van EijndhovenDepartment of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Isala Zwolle, Zwolle, The Netherlands.
Kirsten B KluiversDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Mirjam WeemhoffDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Zuyderland Medical Centre, Heerlen, The Netherlands.
Radboud University Nijmegen · NLIsala · NLMaastricht University Medical Centre · NLZuyderland Medisch Centrum · NL

Funding

ZonMw (Netherlands) 80-84300-98-83006
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo investigate women's preference for modified Manchester (MM) or sacrospinous hysteropexy (SH) as surgery for uterine prolapse.

designLabelled discrete choice experiment (DCE).

settingEight Dutch hospitals. POPULATION: Women with uterine prolapse, eligible for primary surgery and preference for uterus preservation.

methodsDCEs are attribute-based surveys. The two treatment options were labelled as MM and SH. Attributes in this survey were treatment success ( levels SH: 84%, 89%, 94%; levels MM: 89%, 93%, 96%), dyspareunia (levels: 0%, 5%, 10%), cervical stenosis (levels: 1%, 6%, 11%) and severe buttock pain (levels: 0%, 1%). A different combination of attribute levels was used in each choice set. Women completed nine choice sets, making a choice based on attribute levels. Data were analysed in multinomial logit models.

main outcome measuresWomen's preference for MM or SH.

results137 DCEs were completed (1233 choice sets). SH was chosen in 49% of the choice sets, MM in 51%. Of all women, 39 (28%) always chose the same surgery. After exclusion of this group, 882 choice sets were analysed, in which women preferred MM, likely associated with a labelling effect, i.e. description of the procedure, rather than the tested attributes. In that group, MM was chosen in 53% of the choice sets and SH in 47%. When choosing MM, next to the label, dyspareunia was relevant for decision-making. For SH, all attributes were relevant for decision-making.

conclusionsThe preference of women for MM or SH seems almost equally divided. The variety in preference supports the importance of individualised healthcare.

Indexed as

DyspareuniaUterine ProlapseChoice BehaviorFemaleHumansPatient PreferenceSurveys and QuestionnairesTreatment OutcomeUterusdiscrete choice experimentmodified Manchesterpatient preferencepelvic organ prolapsesacrospinous hysteropexyuterine prolapse

Identifiers

PMID36043332
PMCPMC10087824
OpenAlexW4291004600

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.