Cited by 149Pelvic floor disorders treatmentsUterine Myomas and TreatmentsReproductive Health and Contraception

Attitudes Toward Hysterectomy in Women Undergoing Evaluation for Uterovaginal Prolapse

Frick, Anna C., Barber, Matthew D., Paraiso, Marie Fidela R., Ridgeway, Beri, Jelovsek, John Eric, Walters, Mark D.·2013·Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To investigate attitudes toward hysterectomy in women seeking care for pelvic organ prolapse. METHODS: Two hundred twenty women referred for evaluation of prolapse without evidence of previous hysterectomy were surveyed with the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Distress Inventory; the Control Preferences Scale; and questions regarding patients' perception of the impact of hysterectomy on health, social life, and emotional well-being. Additional items presented hypothetical scenarios. Surveys were distributed in small batches until 100 responses were obtained from patients who met inclusion criteria. RESULTS: One hundred women with an intact uterus responded. Sixty percent indicated they would decline hysterectomy if presented with an equally efficacious alternative to a hysterectomy-based prolapse repair. The doctor's opinion, risk of surgical complications, and risk of malignancy were the most important factors in surgical decision making. CONCLUSIONS: Many women with prolapse prefer to retain their uterus at the time of surgery in the absence of a substantial benefit to hysterectomy. These findings should provide further impetus to investigate the efficacy of uterine-sparing procedures to help women make informed decisions regarding prolapse surgery.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/spv.0b013e31827d8667

Cites

5 of 5 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
Frick, A. C., Barber, M. D., Paraiso, M. F. R., Ridgeway, B., Jelovsek, J. E., & Walters, M. D.
Affiliations
Cleveland Clinic (US)
Venue
Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery
Published
2013-03
Volume
19
Issue
2
Pages
103-109
ISSN
2151-8378 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2334954175
Cited by
149
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 5
FWCI
6.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Urogynecology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rheumatology › Pelvic floor disorders treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Uterine Myomas and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Reproductive Health and Contraception
Keywords
hysterectomy, uterovaginal prolapse, pelvic organ prolapse, patient attitudes, surgical decision-making, uterus-sparing surgery, prolapse repair, surgical complications, cancer risk, informed consent, Control Preferences Scale
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Attitude to Health, Decision Making, Female, Humans, Hysterectomy, Middle Aged, 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