ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2024
Exploring Clinicians' Willingness to Embrace Customizable Pessaries: A Survey Study in the USA.
Article in International urogynecology journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisThis study surveyed urogynecologists and Advanced Practice Providers (APPs) in the USA to gauge their interest and willingness to embrace customizable pessaries as a viable treatment option. We hypothesize that clinicians might be interested in using customizable pessaries in their practice.
methodsA cross-sectional survey was conducted among urogynecologists and their APPs who fit pessaries to gain insights into their experiences with standard pessaries and perspectives on the value and feasibility of customizable devices. The survey was distributed through email lists associated with women's health and pelvic floor disorders and gathered data on the difficulty in fitting pessaries and the perceived advantages of integrating customizable options into clinical practice.
resultsThere were 122 participants, including 76 physicians and 46 APPs. Thirty-five percent of clinicians advocated for pessaries as a first-line therapy for pelvic floor disorders. APPs were more inclined to recommend pessaries as a primary therapy than physicians (p < 0.01). Fifty-three percent of providers reported occasional difficulties, and 12% reported frequent difficulties fitting patients with standard-shaped pessaries. APPs were significantly more likely to encounter fitting issues due to pessary shape (p = 0.023). Clinicians suggested additional practices, such as modifying pessaries to enhance retention in patients with an enlarged genital hiatus, shortened vaginas, or apical narrowing.
conclusionsThis study indicates that clinicians are inclined to incorporate customizable pessaries into their treatment protocols for pelvic floor disorders, emphasizing the need for continued innovation in pessary customization that prioritizes a patient-centric approach to pelvic floor disorder management.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39235506What 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.