SynthesisBMC women's health2026
Safety and efficacy of same-day discharge versus overnight stay following pelvic floor reconstructive surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC women's health, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of same-day discharge (SDD) and overnight stay (OS) after pelvic floor reconstruction surgery (PFRS).
methodsWe systematically searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, Wanfang database, CNKI database, VIP database, and CBM databases from 2015 to December 31, 2024. Primary outcome measures included 30-day hospital readmission, postoperative complications, unplanned hospital visits, reoperation, and emergency department (ED) visits. Two reviewers independently performed study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment. A meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.4, and quality assessment was performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS).
resultsFourteen observational comparative studies involving 16,064 PFRS patients were included. Meta-analysis showed that compared with the OS group, the SDD group had lower incidences of postoperative complications (risk ratio [RR] = 0.55, 95% CI 0.43, 0.70, P < 0.0001), reoperation (RR = 0.62, 95% CI 0.39, 0.99, P = 0.05), and readmission (RR = 0.72, 95% CI 0.53, 0.99, P = 0.04). No significant differences were observed in 30-day unplanned hospital contact (Risk Difference = -0.04, 95% CI -0.11, 0.03, P = 0.30) or ED visits (RR = 0.87, 95% CI 0.63, 1.21, P = 0.41).
conclusionSDD following PFRS appears to be associated with comparable or lower risks of adverse outcomes in appropriately selected patients. However, causal inference is limited by the observational nature of included studies. Further prospective randomized controlled trials are needed to validate its safety and develop standardized SDD guidelines.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42919320What 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.