ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2026
A Systematic Review (and Meta-Analysis) and Global Expert Consensus Statements (U-POP): The Manchester Procedure.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisThe Manchester procedure (MP) is the oldest uterus-sparing technique for uterine prolapse and has traditionally been used to treat cervical elongation (CE). However, its optimal application remains unclear. This review aimed to evaluate the best management of CE during primary uterovaginal prolapse repair, and to assess whether MP technique variations influence outcomes.
methodsFollowing PRISMA guidelines, studies were retrieved from MEDLINE, Embase, and Pubmed through November 3, 2025. Evidence quality was assessed using GRADE criteria. Eligible studies included women undergoing surgery for primary uterovaginal prolapse. Outcomes included anatomic recurrence, patient-reported symptoms of vaginal bulge, and retreatment at ≥ 12 months. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed when ≥ 2 studies reported the same intervention and outcome. Evidence-based clinical statements were developed and evaluated through a consensus conference.
resultsOf 456 screened abstracts, 12 studies met inclusion criteria (one RCT, one prospective cohort, ten retrospective cohorts). Overall study quality was low (grade C). Only one study clearly defined and measured CE, preventing determination of the most effective surgical approach for women with CE. MP techniques incorporating cardinal-ligament suspension showed lower anatomic failure rates than those without (9.16% vs 30.22; p = 0.024). Patient-reported bulge symptoms were similar (17.59% vs 17.32%; p = 0.969), as were retreatment rates (3.91% vs 9.45%; p = 0.136).
conclusionsCurrent evidence does not identify an optimal surgical strategy for CE due to inconsistent definitions and limited reporting of CE measurement. MP techniques incorporating cardinal-ligament suspension may reduce anatomic recurrence, although data remain limited and heterogeneous. Standardized CE definitions and improved reporting are needed to strengthen the evidence base.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42747444What 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.