ArticleRevista da Escola de Enfermagem da U S P2026
Application of patient-reported outcome instruments in nonsurgical management of pelvic organ prolapse: a scoping review.
Article in Revista da Escola de Enfermagem da U S P, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo review the content, characteristics, and current application status of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for non-surgical treatment of pelvic organ prolapse (POP), providing information for future research.
methodsIn accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines, a systematic search of PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Database, VIP Database, and Chinese Biomedicine Literature Database (CBM-SinoMed) was conducted. The search period covered the inception of each database through January 16, 2025.
resultA total of 1548 studies were identified, of which 19 were included in the review. In the context of non-surgical POP, PROs were primarily used to evaluate clinical effectiveness, quality of life, and symptoms. Across the included literature, 29 PRO instruments were described, covering aspects such as patients' physiological and psychological status, treatment satisfaction, and treatment goals.
conclusionPROs application in non-surgical POP management remains limited. Future efforts should expand its scope, implement dynamic assessment across treatment stages, and utilize digital technology to improve the convenience and efficiency of assessment.
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.