Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42726220›Full record

ReviewInternational urogynecology journal2026

How is Subjective Surgical Success Defined Using the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI-20) After Primary Uterovaginal Prolapse Repair? A Systematic Review and Consensus Statements from the U-POP & LUTD 2026 Global Consensus Conference.

Alessandro Ferdinando Ruffolo, Marisa Nhat-Quynh Duong, Laura Cheng, Maurizio Serati, Alexis Anne Dieter, Amr Sherif El Haraki

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Alessandro Ferdinando RuffoloCHU Lille, Service de Chirurgie Gynécologique, 59000, Lille, France.
Marisa Nhat-Quynh DuongDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, 1 Medical Center Boulevard, Winston Salem, NC, 27157, USA. mnduong.md@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0003-6671-9536
Laura ChengDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Urogynecology & Reconstructive Pelvic Surgery, MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, DC, USA.
Maurizio SeratiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Urogynecology Unit, Del Ponte Hospital, University of Insubria, Varese, Italy.
Alexis Anne DieterDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Urogynecology & Reconstructive Pelvic Surgery, MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, DC, USA.
Amr Sherif El HarakiDepartment of Urology, Division of Urogynecology, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston Salem, NC, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introduction and hypothesisAnatomic success after pelvic organ prolapse (POP) surgery correlates poorly with symptom relief, prompting reliance on patient-reported outcomes (PROs). The Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI-20) is widely used, yet how it is applied to define subjective surgical success is unclear. We aimed to evaluate how subjective success is defined using the PFDI-20 and its components after primary uterovaginal prolapse repair.

methodsAs part of the U-POP & LUTD 2026 Global Consensus Conference, a systematic review (PRISMA; PROSPERO CRD420251171050) of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrials.gov was conducted from inception to 8 December 2025. English-language studies of women undergoing primary uterovaginal prolapse repair that reported a PFDI-20- or POPDI-6-based definition of success were included. Screening and extraction were performed in duplicate, and the certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE. Findings informed expert consensus statements.

resultsOf 5379 records, 28 studies (4196 women) were included. Surgical success was most commonly defined as the absence of a vaginal bulge symptom-a negative response to question 3 of the PFDI-20-in 21 of 28 studies. Other definitions combined question 3 with additional items, required a negative POPDI-6 subscale, or used a statistically significant change in total PFDI-20 score. Only one study applied a minimal clinically important difference (MCID), and none applied a patient acceptable symptom state (PASS).

conclusionsSubjective success after primary uterovaginal prolapse repair is most often defined by a single PFDI-20 item, with MCID and PASS thresholds rarely applied. Consistent, validated definitions are needed to improve comparability across trials.

Indexed as

Patient-reported outcome measuresPelvic Floor Distress InventoryPelvic organ prolapseSurgical successSystematic reviewUterovaginal prolapse

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.