Cited by 25Pelvic floor disorders treatmentsSexual function and dysfunction studiesUterine Myomas and Treatments

Current trends in pessary management of vaginal prolapse: a multidisciplinary survey of UK practice

Brown, Claire A., Pradhan, Ashish, Pandeva, Ivilina·2021·International Urogynecology Journal

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis Symptomatic vaginal prolapse affects 6-28% of women and significantly impacts their quality of life. Pessaries for prolapse are used by three-quarters of clinicians as a first-line treatment; however, current clinical use in the UK is unknown and there is a lack of clinical guidance or training. This study is aimed at informing the upcoming UK Clinical Guidance on best practice for the use of pessaries document.Methods A 19-question, anonymised, electronic survey was sent to members of the nine professional bodies delivering pessary care in the UK.Results Of 917 respondents, 403 (246 nurses, 134 doctors, 22 physiotherapists and 1 other profession) currently deliver pessary care. PVC/vinyl ring, silicone ring, Gellhorn and shelf pessaries are most popular, and are used frequently by 93% of respondents. Further pessary training was deemed necessary by 62% of those currently providing pessary care, and 70% of those who do not. The most highly rated method for previous and future training is shadowing another clinician. One in three respondents receive no ancillary support and nearly 1 in 7 (predominantly nurses) report the absence of cross-cover arrangements, leaving a gap in care provision.Conclusions Service provision, support and pessary training in the UK vary greatly. This calls for the standardisation of care, training and development of a national guideline. We present a clear rationale and need for a UK guideline on pessary management of vaginal prolapse and a standardised pessary training model for multi-professional use.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00192-020-04537-5

Cites

20 of 20 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Brown, C. A., Pradhan, A., & Pandeva, I.
Affiliations
Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
Corresponding author
Brown, Claire A.
Venue
International Urogynecology Journal
Published
2020-10-09
Volume
32
Issue
4
Pages
1015-1022
ISSN
  • 0937-3462 (ISSN-L)
  • 1433-3023
OpenAlex
W3092228177
Cited by
25
References
20
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 3
FWCI
2.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • International Urogynecology Journal (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Chartered Society of Physiotherapy Charitable Trust
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rheumatology › Pelvic floor disorders treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Sexual function and dysfunction studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Uterine Myomas and Treatments
Keywords
vaginal prolapse, multidisciplinary care, clinical practice variation
MeSH terms
Female, United Kingdom, Humans, Pessaries, Quality of Life, Surveys and Questionnaires, Uterine Prolapse, Pelvic Organ Prolapse

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review