Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38634900›Full record

SynthesisArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2024

Self-care of vaginal pessary for pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Alessandro Ferdinando Ruffolo, Marine Lallemant, Deseure Aurore, Yohan Kerbage, Chrystèle Rubod, Michel Cosson

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. 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 1 institution in 1 country.

Alessandro Ferdinando RuffoloDepartment of Gynecology, Jeanne de Flandre University Hospital, 59000, Lille, France. alesruffolo@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9983-523X
Marine LallemantDepartment of Gynecology, Jeanne de Flandre University Hospital, 59000, Lille, France.
Deseure AuroreDepartment of Gynecology, Jeanne de Flandre University Hospital, 59000, Lille, France.
Yohan KerbageDepartment of Gynecology, Jeanne de Flandre University Hospital, 59000, Lille, France.
Chrystèle RubodDepartment of Gynecology, Jeanne de Flandre University Hospital, 59000, Lille, France.
Michel CossonDepartment of Gynecology, Jeanne de Flandre University Hospital, 59000, Lille, France.
Hôpital Jeanne de Flandre · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThere is no evidence about the efficacy of self-care of vaginal pessary in women with symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse (POP). The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to assess the adherence to pessary treatment among women who engage in self-management of their pessary.

methodsWe performed a systematic review and meta-analysis, according to PRISMA 2020 guidelines, and selected seven publications for inclusion in the analysis.

resultsPooled continuation rate of self-cared vaginal pessary was the 76% (95%CI: 66-85%) with a I

conclusionSelf-care vaginal pessary management presented a high continuation rate in women affected by pelvic organ prolapse at a long follow-up. The rate of conversion to surgical management of POP was low. No significant difference in continuation rate were highlighted between women who adopted the self-care or the clinical-based management of pessary.

Indexed as

Pelvic Organ ProlapsePessariesSelf CareFemaleHumansPatient ComplianceTreatment OutcomePelvic organ prolapsePessarySelf-careSelf-managementVaginal pessary

Identifiers

PMID38634900
OpenAlexW4394920763

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.