SynthesisInternational urogynecology journal2025
Systematic Review of Evidence for Conservative Management of Pelvic Organ Prolapse in Younger Women.
Synthesis in International urogynecology journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of the Efficacy of Three Intervention Schemes for Postpartum Pelvic Floor Muscle Hypertonia.International urogynecology journal · 2025Trial
- How Can We Improve the Assessment and Indifferent Outcomes From Pelvic Organ Prolapse Management From Conservative and Surgical Therapies? ICI-RS 2025.Neurourology and urodynamics · 2026Review
- Immunomodulatory piezoelectric master electrospun membranes for pelvic floor repair.Journal of nanobiotechnology · 2026Article
- Symptom Burden, Treatment Goals, and Information Needs of Younger Women with Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Content Analysis of ePAQ-Pelvic Floor Free-Text Responses.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionTreatment of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is poorly understood in younger women as the majority of prolapse research is conducted in the older population. There is an urgent need to evaluate conservative POP treatments for management in younger women due to high surgical complications and reoperation rates.
methodsSystematic review of the literature following PRISMA guidelines and registered in PROSPERO. Included studies were of conservative treatments in women younger than 51 years old.
resultsFrom 416 retrieved studies, nine were included in the analysis. Two of three studies found pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) significantly benefited patient reported outcome measures (PROM) compared to educational material. One of three studies found significant improvement in PROM using biofeedback in addition to PFMT versus PFMT alone. Electrical stimulation with PFMT versus PFMT alone (one study) showed significant additional benefit of the combined treatment. Biofeedback and electrical stimulation in combination with PFMT versus PFMT alone (one study) was found to provide significant additional benefits. One compared pessary use to no intervention but stopped early due to slow recruitment.
conclusionPFMT improves patient reported outcomes in younger women with POP. Electrical stimulation and biofeedback are useful adjuncts to PFMT. The gap in research investigating the effect of pessaries in younger women warrants further study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39666016What 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.