ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2025
Pectopexy for Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Scoping Review.
Article 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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Pelvic Organ Prolapse: Current Challenges and Future Perspectives.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisPectopexy is an emerging surgical technique for apical pelvic organ prolapse, anchoring the prolapsed structure to the iliopectineal ligament. This review aims to systematically map the available evidence on pectopexy, including study characteristics, surgical techniques, and reported outcomes.
methodsA systematic search was conducted across PubMed, Scopus, CENTRAL, CINAHL, LILACS, ClinicalTrials.gov, ProQuest, and OpenGrey, alongside citation searches. Eligible studies included those assessing pectopexy for apical pelvic organ prolapse (POP-Q stage ≥ 2). Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies, and descriptive studies were included, while case reports and reviews were excluded. Study selection and data extraction were independently conducted by two reviewers, with findings summarised through descriptive synthesis.
resultsThirty studies (2715 women) were eligible, which included four RCTs (13.3%), 10 cohort studies (33.3%), and 16 descriptive studies (53.3%). Most studies were conducted in Asia (66.7%), high-income economies (46.7%), and in tertiary care centres (86.7%). Pectopexy was primarily performed laparoscopically (86.7%), with bilateral fixation (86.7%) and using polypropylene mesh (46.7%). Eighty-five unique outcomes were reported. Commonly reported perioperative outcomes included operative time (86.7%), blood loss (50.0%), and length of hospital stay (50.0%). Recurrence of apical prolapse (90.0%), stress urinary incontinence (60.0%), and complications related to fixation material (53.3%) were frequently documented. No studies reported recurrence of prolapse symptoms, and the most frequent patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) was P-QOL (23.3%).
conclusionsThe reported pectopexy procedures and outcomes were heterogeneous. Current evidence is limited, particularly from RCTs and low-resource settings. Subjective outcomes and PROMs were underreported.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40668393What 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.