Priority 17 from the Pessary use for Prolapse PSP
|UNCERTAINTY: Which pessary should be used for which prolapse? (JLA PSP Priority 17)
|JLA question ID
|It would be very useful for clinicians to know whether one pessary was as good as another for the management of prolapse. The prices of different pessaries vary considerably and some are harder to fit than others. If the most common ring pessary was as effective in all cases of prolapse considerable savings could be anticipated.
|Health Research Classification System category
|Renal and urogenital
|Extra information provided by this PSP
|Original uncertainty examples
Which pessary is best for different kinds of prolapse? ~ Are they different to the shelf insertion? ~ Are pessaries suitable for all types of prolapse? ~ Which type of ring pessary (standard, silicone, the one with the thicker part on it) is best for women? ~ Who/which types of POP are the most likely to be associated with longterm use of pessaries? ~ Are there different types of pessary? ~ Which pessaries are easiest for the patient to fit and remove themselves? ~ Which is the best pessary? ~ Randomized clinical trials are needed to define optimal pessary use, including the indications for support pessaries compared with space-filling pessaries,
|3 x both, 3 x other, 14 x women, 23 x healthcare professionals, 3 x literature
|PSP unique ID
|Pessary use for Prolapse
|Total number of uncertainties identified by this PSP.
|66 (To see a full list of all uncertainties identified, please see the detailed spreadsheet held on the JLA website)
|Date of priority setting workshop
|8 September 2017