Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39710658›Full record

ArticleBMC urology2024

Examining pessary use and satisfaction in managing pelvic organ prolapse: results from a cross-sectional multicentre patient survey.

Minhal Mussawar, Sahar Khademioore, Astha Chandra, Mehrshad Hanafimosalman, Garson Chan

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC urology, 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. Article
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

5 authors.

Minhal MussawarCollege of Medicine, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada.
Sahar KhademiooreDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
Astha ChandraFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.
Mehrshad HanafimosalmanFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.
Garson ChanCollege of Medicine, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada. garson.chan@usask.ca.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundVaginal pessaries are a common method of managing pelvic organ prolapse (POP), as well as different types of urinary incontinence, allowing patients to successfully improve overall quality of life. Yet despite their positive attributes, there are several reasons why patients may choose to discontinue using pessaries and proceed with surgery to treat their condition instead. This study aimed to explore patients' experiences of pessary use in treating POP.

methodsParticipants completed an online survey regarding pessary use and ideal characteristics of a pessary. Participants were recruited from social media advertisements, online support groups for women's health-related conditions, and pelvic floor clinics.

resultsA total of 100 participants were recruited, of which 77 fully completed the survey. The biggest age group of participants was above 65 years, with 48.1% of participants falling into this category, followed by 35-44 years accounting for 20.8% of respondents. Respondents cited pelvic pain (35.2%), excess vaginal discharge and odor (32.4%), as well as difficulty with pessary placement as the most common issues related to pessary use (41.9%). Easy insertion, removal (81.8%), and relief from side effects (81.8%) were the most commonly reported ideal characteristics for pessary use.

conclusionPatients had important concerns with pessary use and a high number either stopped or were considering stopping even when it improved their POP. Whilst pessaries can help in the management of POP, further improvement is warranted to increase pessary use, such as through the development of user-friendly designs, or applicators to aid with fitting.

Indexed as

Patient SatisfactionPelvic Organ ProlapsePessariesSurveys and QuestionnairesAdultAgedCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMiddle AgedCystocelePatient perspectivePelvic organ prolapsePessaryRectoceleUterine prolapse

Identifiers

PMID39710658
PMCPMC11665120

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.