ReviewInternational urogynecology journal2026
Chapter 4.5: New Proposed Treatments for Pelvic Organ Prolapse.
Review in International urogynecology journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bilateral Sacrospinous Colposuspension with Sling for Advanced Pelvic Organ Prolapse: Anatomical and Functional Outcomes in a 235-Patient Cohort.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Electrospun poly-4-hydroxybuterate scaffolds enable local zero-order estradiol delivery and promote collagen maturation in a hypoestrogenic rat model for pelvic organ prolapse repair.Biomaterials and biosystems · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is a morbid and costly condition that affects millions of women worldwide. Given the shortcommings of the current treatments, novel preventative and therapeutic approaches are needed. This manuscript is part of the International Urogynaecologogy Consultation (IUC) on pelvic organ prolapse (POP) chapter four on new and novel treatments for pelvic organ prolapse. The current expert narrative review (1) highlights the rationale for novel treatments for POP; (2) summarizes the exisitng mechanistic insights into physiologic alterations needed to inform the development of novel preventative and therapeutic strategies for POP; (3) reviews relevant modern tools that can help establish causal relationships between epidemiologic risk factors and POP pathogenesis; (4) describes prevention-focused interventions and advancements in treatment-focused interventions to date; and (4) emphasizes requirements for responsible translation of discoveries into novel treatments and safe incorporation of new treatments into clinical practice. Importantly, the review underscores the need for multidisciplinary adequately funded research and training programs as an absolute prerequisite for enabling a long overdue shift in clinical paradigm-instead of relying on delayed compensatory "one-size-fits-all" treatments that do not address the underlying pathophysiology, the focus should be on preventing or mitigating POP through personalized medicine approaches supported by team science.
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.