Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37659003›Full record

ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2024

Patient experience of pain during vaginal pessary removal and insertion: a service evaluation study.

Caitlin Renouf, Paul Ballard, Aethele Khunda, Victoria Kershaw, Sami Shawer, Jon Rees

Open access · greenAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International urogynecology journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 39% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Caitlin RenoufSouth Tees NHS Foundation Trust, Middlesbrough, UK. c.renouf@nhs.net.ORCID 0000-0001-9926-8047
Paul BallardSouth Tees NHS Foundation Trust, Middlesbrough, UK.
Aethele KhundaSouth Tees NHS Foundation Trust, Middlesbrough, UK.
Victoria KershawSouth Tees NHS Foundation Trust, Middlesbrough, UK.
Sami ShawerSouth Tees NHS Foundation Trust, Middlesbrough, UK.
Jon ReesUniversity of Sunderland, Sunderland, UK.
South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of Sunderland · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introduction and hypothesisPelvic organ prolapse is a common problem affecting women, but there is currently a lack of research focusing on patient experience of pessary changes. This study was aimed at capturing the patient perspective of pessary changes and formally assessing pain during pessary removal and insertion.

methodsA service evaluation request was granted by South Tees Hospitals NHS Trust. Patients undergoing pessary change (ring, shelf, or Gellhorn) in gynaecology outpatient clinics over a 6-month period were asked to rate their pain scores on a ten-point numerical pain-rating scale. Other associated data were collected.

resultsOut of 213 women, 58.2% reported that pessary removal was more painful than insertion, 30.5% reported equal pain, and 10.8% reported that insertion was more painful than removal. Pain scores were significantly higher for removal (mean 4.37, median 4, IQR 4-7) than for insertion (mean 2.66, median 2, IQR 2-4, p <0.001). Ring pessaries were significantly less painful to both remove and insert than shelf and Gellhorn pessaries. Smaller pessaries were more painful to both remove and insert. There was no significant difference in pain scores reported by those with or without diagnosed vulval conditions.

conclusionsPessary removal causes most women moderate pain, which should be communicated to patients beforehand. Ring pessaries are significantly less painful to change than other pessary types. Clinicians should consider pain as a factor in their decision-making surrounding pessary choice and when counselling patients. Future research should focus on ways to reduce pain during pessary removal.

Indexed as

Ambulatory Care FacilitiesPessariesColpotomyFemaleHumansPainPatient Outcome AssessmentPregnancyPainPatient experiencePelvic-organ prolapsePessary changesVaginal pessaries

Identifiers

PMID37659003
OpenAlexW4386390908

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.