Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39066810›Full record

ReviewInternational urogynecology journal2024

Surgical Decision-Making: Who Should Be Offered Sacrocolpopexy?

Sarah A Collins, Margaret G Mueller, Christina Lewicky-Gaupp, Kimberly Kenton

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review 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
–field-weighted citation impact
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. 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

4 authors.

Sarah A CollinsThe University of Chicago Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA. scollins2@bsd.uchicago.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-3602-9783
Margaret G MuellerThe University of Chicago Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA.
Christina Lewicky-GauppThe University of Chicago Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA.
Kimberly KentonThe University of Chicago Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introduction and hypothesisWomen undergoing surgery for apical pelvic organ prolapse have several medically sound options for specific surgical approaches.

methodsWe review the principles of shared decision-making as they pertain to surgery for prolapse. We review the literature supporting the superior sacrocolpopexy as a durable treatment for prolapse and the factors that may differentiate it from other repairs in risk and benefit.

resultsWe emphasize the importance of collaboration between patients and surgeons in surgical decision-making.

conclusionAll medically appropriate patients who desire reconstructive surgery for prolapse should be offered sacrocolpopexy.

Indexed as

Gynecologic Surgical ProceduresPelvic Organ ProlapseClinical Decision-MakingDecision MakingDecision Making, SharedFemaleHumansPatient SelectionVaginaElective surgeryPelvic organ prolapseSacrocolpopexyShared decision-making

Identifiers

PMID39066810

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.