Observational studyInternational urogynecology journal2023
Are older patients with prolapse likely to continue pessary use? A retrospective observational study.
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 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Primary Treatment of Pelvic Organ Prolapse in Women Aged Over 80 Years: Pessary Versus Surgery.International urogynecology journal · 2026Article
- Updates in Pessary Care for Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisTo review the outcomes and complications of vaginal prolapse management with pessaries in women aged 75 years or older, to ascertain whether pessaries are providing satisfactory long-term outcomes for older women.
methodsA retrospective observational study was performed on women aged 75 years or older presenting to a tertiary Urogynaecology service with vaginal prolapse who opted for management with a vaginal pessary. Demographic and clinical data were collected by reviewing clinical files. The primary outcome was the proportion of women who opted for pessary management who later required prolapse surgery. Secondary outcomes included pessary complications and risk factors for failure. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates were performed to analyse pessary failure.
resultsOf the 218 women who presented with prolapse, 78% opted for pessary management, and pessary fitting was successful in 84%. Sixty-nine percent of women who opted for initial pessary management underwent surgery later, with a mean time from pessary insertion to surgery of 21.6 months. Vaginal erosions were reported in 42% of pessary users. Risk factors for pessary failure were younger age and previous history of hysterectomy or prolapse surgery.
conclusionsAlthough vaginal pessary use was the preferred first-line management choice for vaginal prolapse in most older women, surgery for prolapse was ultimately required in two-thirds of those conservatively managed. As three-quarters of older women presenting with prolapse had surgery as either a primary or secondary procedure; patients need to be advised of the high chance of requiring surgery at a later stage if they opt for pessary management.
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.