| Mechanical devices for pelvic organ prolapse in women |
|
Patient or population: patients with pelvic organ prolapse in women
Settings:
Intervention: mechanical devices |
| Outcomes |
Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) |
Relative effect
(95% CI) |
No of Participants
(studies) |
Quality of the evidence
(GRADE) |
Comments |
| Assumed risk |
Corresponding risk |
| Control |
Mechanical devices |
|
Patients perceived improvement in symptoms of prolapse assessed using validated symptom questionnaire at 1 year ‐ not reported |
See comment |
See comment |
Not estimable |
‐ |
See comment |
|
|
Acceptability/satisfaction with treatment at 1 year ‐ not reported |
See comment |
See comment |
Not estimable |
‐ |
See comment |
|
|
Grade of prolapse with device in situ at 1 year ‐ not reported |
See comment |
See comment |
Not estimable |
‐ |
See comment |
|
| *The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).
CI: Confidence interval; |
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.
Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.
Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.
Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate. |
