ArticleBMC women's health2025
Demographic, socioeconomic and functional health-related factors in the selection of vaginal pessaries used for the conservative treatment of pelvic organ prolapse: a retrospective study.
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.
- Comparison of Colpocleisis and Long-Term Pessary Therapy in the Management of Severe Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Retrospective Observational Study.Gynecologic and obstetric investigation · 2026Article
- Formulation, development and characterization of fosfomycin tromethamine pessaries for the treatment of vaginal infections.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- The Impact of Gynecological Pathologies on Patients' Quality of Life from Menarche to Menopause-Literature Review.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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVaginal pessary therapy is a well-known conservative treatment of pelvic organ prolapse (POP). According to several national guidelines, pessary therapy should be used as a first-line treatment for pelvic organ prolapse. A distinction is made between pessaries that can be worn permanently or require daily control. This therapy is primarily chosen by elderly patients who are not suitable for surgery or by patients not wishing to undergo surgical treatment. The aim of our study was to investigate what demographic, socioeconomic and functional health-related factors play a role in the choice of the pessary types, and to provide healthcare professionals with guidance on recommending a pessary type to patients based on these factors.
methods115 female patients using vaginal pessaries for POP were included in our study (group I:73 pts used a daily control "cube" pessary (DCP), group II.:42 pts used a long-term wear ring pessary (LTP). Data collection was performed between March 2021 and March 2022 through a personally completed questionnaire or telephone interview. The following factors were investigated: patients' age, fertility, education level, employment status, marital status, independence, hand function, vision, mobility, physical and sexual activity.
resultsA significant difference was found between the DCP and LTP groups in terms of average age (44.9 vs. 75.7 years p < 0.0001), fertility (61.6 vs. 4.6% p < 0.0001), employment status (retired: 18 vs. 100% p < 0.0001), marital status (single: 8.3 vs. 44.1% p < 0.0001) and educational level (highest: 81.9 vs. 25.6% p < 0.0001). In terms of functional health-related factors, such as weakened hand function (1.4 vs. 34.9% p < 0.0001), vision impairment (19.4 vs. 58.1% p < 0.0001), reduced mobility (5.5 vs. 81.4% p < 0.0001), sexual activity ratio (87.5 vs. 0% p < 0.0001), and the level of physical activity (VAS: 9.5 vs. 6.1 p < 0.01) also significant differences were registered between the DCP and LTP groups.
conclusionsThe choice of the type of vaginal pessary treatment for POP is influenced by many patient-side factors.
trial registrationThe study was conducted with the approval of the Regional Institutional Scientific and Research Ethics Committee of Semmelweis University (SE RKEB 97/2022).
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.