ArticleBMC women's health2025
Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) symptom progression and treatment satisfaction from the patients' perspective.
Article in BMC women's health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The influence of neonatal birth weight on postpartum pelvic floor function in primiparas.Medicine · 2026Article
- From Mesh to Modern Therapies: An Updated Narrative Review on Urogenital Prolapse.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Development and Simulation-Based Validation of Biodegradable 3D-Printed Cog Threads for Pelvic Organ Prolapse Repair.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPelvic organ prolapse (POP) is a condition where pelvic organs descend into the vaginal canal due to weakened pelvic floor muscles. Nearly 50% of women will develop some degree of POP, with incidence peaking at ages 50-54 and 65-69. This study aims to identify early symptoms of POP and assess their progression, improvement, or regression from the patient's subjective perspective. This study also aims to understand patient satisfaction as it relates to treatment modalities.
methodsAn exploratory cross-sectional survey was conducted amongst participants with a POP diagnosis that were over the age of eighteen and lived within the United States.
resultsAmong 158 participants, the feeling of a bulge (mean severity 6.62 reduced to 3.48), back pain (5.49 to 3.51), and constipation (5.56 to 3.91) showed the greatest improvement after surgical and non-surgical treatments for POP. Other common pelvic floor symptoms, including stress urinary incontinence (4.33 to 2.88), fecal incontinence (3.02 to 2.08), and dyspareunia (4.30 to 3.59), showed minimal improvement, while pelvic pain (4.73 to 4.00) and urinary retention (3.55 to 3.44) remained largely unchanged. Non-surgical treatments had lower satisfaction scores as compared to physical therapy and pessary usage. Surgical treatments such as posterior vaginal repair (7.02), anterior bladder repair (6.69), and vaginal vault sacrocolpopexy (7.45) showed higher satisfaction ratings.
conclusionsFindings highlight the critical need for understanding symptom progression and regression as told from the patient's perspective. While data analysis shows resolution of some symptoms, the persistence of others post-treatment suggests that current treatment protocols may not fully address all aspects of POP effectively or may be unrelated.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.