Ranked among the 5,000 newest matching findings; add words or filters to narrow the search.
Summary of findings table ‐ Any psychosocial intervention showed no clear difference in point abstinence, longest compared with no intervention (high certainty).
Summary of findings table ‐ Any psychosocial intervention probably leads to higher continuous abstinence, end of treatment compared with no intervention (moderate certainty).
Summary of findings table ‐ Any psychosocial intervention showed no clear difference in continuous abstinence, longest compared with no intervention (low certainty).
Summary of findings table ‐ Any psychosocial intervention leads to lower dropouts compared with treatment (high certainty).
Summary of findings table ‐ Any psychosocial intervention showed no clear difference in point abstinence, end of treatment compared with treatment (low certainty).
Transvaginal permanent mesh probably leads to lower awareness of prolapse (0.5 to 7 years) compared with native tissue repair (moderate certainty).
Transvaginal biological graft showed no clear difference in surgery for recurrent prolapse (1 to 2 years) compared with native tissue repair (moderate certainty).
Transvaginal biological graft showed no clear difference in recurrent prolapse on examination compared with native tissue repair (low certainty).
Transvaginal biological graft showed no clear difference in visceral injury compared with native tissue repair (low certainty).
It is very uncertain whether transvaginal biological graft changes bladder function compared with native tissue repair (very low certainty).
Transvaginal biological graft showed no clear difference in painful intercourse ‐ de novo dyspareunia compared with native tissue repair (moderate certainty).
It is very uncertain whether transvaginal biological graft changes quality of life compared with native tissue repair (very low certainty).
Transvaginal permanent mesh may leads to higher repeat surgery (0.5 to 7 years) compared with native tissue repair (low certainty).
It is very uncertain whether transvaginal permanent mesh changes recurrent prolapse on examination (any compartment) compared with native tissue repair (very low certainty).
Transvaginal permanent mesh may leads to higher visceral injury compared with native tissue repair (low certainty).
Transvaginal permanent mesh probably leads to higher mesh exposure compared with native tissue repair (moderate certainty).
Transvaginal permanent mesh probably leads to higher bladder function compared with native tissue repair (moderate certainty).
Transvaginal permanent mesh showed no clear difference in painful intercourse ‐ de novo dyspareunia compared with native tissue repair (moderate certainty).