| Title |
Female pelvic organ prolapse using pessaries: systematic review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Urogynecology Journal & Pelvic Floor Dysfunction, March 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00192-016-2991-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Suelene Costa de Albuquerque Coelho, Edilson Benedito de Castro, Cássia Raquel Teatin Juliato |
| Abstract |
The purpose of this systematic review is to assess the impact of pessary use on the quality of life of women with pelvic organ prolapse, and to determine the satisfaction rate and rationale for discontinuation. This review is recorded in the PROSPERO database under number CRD42015023384. The criteria for inclusion were observational study; cross section; cohort study; randomized controlled trial; study published in English, Portuguese, and Spanish; and study whose participants are women with female pelvic organ prolapse treated using a pessary. We did not include limitations on the year of publication. The criteria for exclusion included studies that did not include the topic, bibliographic or systematic reviews and articles that did not use validated questionnaires. The MeSH terms were "Pelvic Organ Prolapse AND Pessaries AND Quality of Life" OR "Pessary AND Quality of Life" OR "Pessaries". We found 89 articles. After the final analyses, seven articles were included. All articles associated pessary use with improved quality of life, and all used only validated questionnaires. Over half of the women continued using the pessary during the follow-up with acceptable levels of satisfaction. The main rationales for discontinuation were discomfort, pain in the area, and expulsion of the device. This systematic review demonstrates that the pessary can produce a positive effect on women's quality of life and can significantly improve sexual function and body perception. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 112 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 111 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 15 | 13% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 10 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 9% |
| Researcher | 9 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 6% |
| Other | 20 | 18% |
| Unknown | 41 | 37% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 42 | 38% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 19 | 17% |
| Engineering | 4 | 4% |
| Chemical Engineering | 1 | <1% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 6 | 5% |
| Unknown | 39 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 April 2016.
All research outputs
#16,045,990
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from International Urogynecology Journal & Pelvic Floor Dysfunction
#1,765
of 2,900 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#171,941
of 315,372 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Urogynecology Journal & Pelvic Floor Dysfunction
#22
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,900 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 315,372 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.