ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2026
Understanding Past and Present Surgical Registries for Patients with Uterovaginal Prolapse and Planning the Development of a Global Registry.
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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisRegistries following patients who undergo surgery for uterovaginal pelvic organ prolapse provide real-world postoperative evidence. We aimed to identify characteristics of successful registries that could be used to develop a sustainable global registry for these patients.
methodsWe performed a systematic review of the literature to identify existing and past registries on the surgical management of primary uterovaginal pelvic organ prolapse. Once identified, key characteristics of the registries were collected, and consensus statements about future efforts to develop a global registry were created. These statements were evaluated through a modified Delphi process.
resultsOne hundred and eleven articles were identified and reviewed, published from 17 registries. Consensus was achieved for the following three statements: surgeons treating patients for uterovaginal pelvic organ prolapse should standardize baseline, surgical, and postoperative objective and subjective data to facilitate the development of a universal registry; urogynecological surgeons and researchers should seek to minimize cost and maximize feasibility by automating data collection through emerging technologies; urogynecological surgeons and researchers should seek the input of key stakeholders to iteratively improve the registry and ensure that it remains evidence-based and current.
conclusionsUnderstanding past and present surgical registries prepares us for the multifaceted efforts that will be required to develop a sustainable, global registry for the surgical management of uterovaginal pelvic organ prolapse.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42900191What 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.