ReviewInternational urogynecology journal2026
Making What Is Old New Again: A Narrative Review Informing Expert Consensus on Obliterative Management of Primary Uterovaginal 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. 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisSurgical management of uterovaginal prolapse using an obliterative vaginal approach is a safe and highly effective option for correction of pelvic organ prolapse. However, there is a lack of standardized procedural guidelines to optimize outcomes. As part of the Global Uterine Pelvic Organ Prolapse (U-POP) Consensus Conference held in Winston Salem, NC, USA, 20-21 April 2026, we aimed to compare specific techniques for colpocleisis in women undergoing surgery for primary uterovaginal prolapse.
methodsA large database systematic review was conducted on publications 31 December 2020 through 4 November 2025. Studies that described specific colpocleisis techniques were included. Primary outcomes were anatomical success, subjective improvement in bulge symptoms, and perioperative complications. Evidence quality was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria. Owing to the low quality of available evidence, a modified Delphi consensus process was used to develop consensus statements at the U-POP conference.
resultsOf the 587 studies identified, 24 cohort and case series met the inclusion criteria. All studies were of low quality according to GRADE criteria. Two consensus statements were successfully agreed upon through the modified Delphi process.
conclusionsHigh-quality evidence supporting specific surgical techniques for obliterative repair of uterovaginal prolapse is limited, with most literature predating 2000. Significant variability exists in the operative techniques described, despite the established safety and efficacy of the procedure. Because meta-analysis was not possible owing to the absence of comparative trials, these consensus statements represent an important first step toward standardization. Further prospective and comparative research is needed to better define techniques and their impact on surgical outcomes in the modern age.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42766157What 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.