Observational studyInternational urogynecology journal2023
Adverse events associated with pessary use over one year among women attending a pessary care clinic.
Observational study in International urogynecology journal, 2023. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of Delayed Pessary Maintenance Appointments on Patient's Symptoms and Clinical Findings During the COVID-19 Pandemic.International urogynecology journal · 2026Article
- Factors for Vaginal Epithelium-Related Adverse Events in Pessary Users: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial.International urogynecology journal · 2026Article
- Updates in Pessary Care for Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Pessaries for pelvic organ prolapse: evaluation of vaginal discharge and pain during pessary cleaning in an outpatient setting.International urogynecology journal · 2024Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisThe primary objective was to determine the adverse event rate associated with pessary use. Secondary objectives were to determine discontinuation, patient satisfaction, and factors associated with adverse events.
methodsA retrospective observational study included patients attending a nurse-led pessary clinic with ≥ 1 year follow-up. Patients were fitted with a pessary by a urogynecologist and pessary care by a nurse was performed every 3-4 months. Demographic characteristics, pessary fitting, adverse events, their management and discontinuation were recorded. Pearson Chi-square and Fisher exact tests assessed the association between predetermined risk factors and pessary complications or discontinuation. Relative risk and 95% confidence intervals were computed.
results215 women were followed for a mean (standard deviation) of 4.4 (1.9) years. Mean age was 73.8 (8.7) years. Adverse event rate was 83.7%; most commonly vaginal discharge, vaginal bleeding and erosions. Women with cardiovascular risk factors were less likely to develop pessary-related adverse events (79.7% vs. 91.9%, p = 0.03). Gellhorn and donut pessaries were more commonly associated with pessary erosions than ring with support pessaries or incontinence rings (RR 2.37 [1.67; 3.38]). Thirty-five (16.3%) women discontinued pessary use at a mean of 3.3 (1.7) years after initial fitting. Having a pessary erosion was not associated with discontinuation (p = 0.698), but recurrent erosions were (p = 0.012).
conclusionAdverse events were common among women continuing to use pessaries past 1 year, but adherence and satisfaction rates remained high after 4.4 years. Pessary type and absence of cardiovascular factors were associated with pessary-related adverse events.
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.