ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2026
Factors for Vaginal Epithelium-Related Adverse Events in Pessary Users: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial.
Article in International urogynecology journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisPessary use is a first-line treatment for pelvic organ prolapse (POP). However, complications such as ulcerations, excessive discharge and so on, often compromise treatment adherence, and their risk factors remain poorly characterized. This study is aimed at identifying associated factors for vaginal epithelium-related adverse events (VERAEs) in pessary users.
methodsThis was a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial, including postmenopausal women with symptomatic POP ≥ stage 2 and successfully fitted with ring pessaries with support. VERAEs were defined as vaginal epithelial abnormalities (erythema, abrasion or erosion/ulceration), vaginal bleeding, or excessive discharge. Participants with and without VERAEs were compared and a multivariable logistic regression model was performed to identify independent factors.
resultsOf 411 women with ≥ 1 follow-up, 119 (29.0%) developed VERAEs. In multivariable regression analysis, longer time since menopause (odds ratio [OR] 1.03, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01-1.07), higher education (undergraduate or higher vs elementary: OR 3.07, 95% CI 1.37-7.03), and advanced prolapse stage (stage 3 vs 2: OR 2.75, 95% CI 1.40-5.74; stage 4 vs 2: OR 3.19, 95% CI 1.20-8.67) were independent risk factors. Protective factors included higher vaginal parity (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.52-0.98), active sexual life (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.24-0.76), and continuous estrogen use (≥ 12 months vs none: OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.26-0.77).
conclusionsProlonged postmenopausal status, higher education, and severe prolapse increased the risk of VERAEs, whereas increased vaginal parity, active sexual life, and estrogen use are protective factors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42319460What 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.