Patient's preference for sacrospinous hysteropexy or modified Manchester operation: A discrete choice experiment
暂无分享,去创建一个
K. Kluivers | B. Essers | K. Notten | M. Weemhoff | S. A. V. van Leijsen | H. V. Van eijndhoven | Rosa A. Enklaar | Sascha F. M. Schulten | S. V. van Leijsen
[1] K. Gradel,et al. Endometrial cancer after the Manchester procedure: a nationwide cohort study , 2021, International Urogynecology Journal.
[2] R. Bremmer,et al. Practice pattern variation: treatment of pelvic organ prolapse in The Netherlands , 2021, International Urogynecology Journal.
[3] K. Kluivers,et al. Gynecologists’ perspectives on two types of uterus-preserving surgical repair of uterine descent; sacrospinous hysteropexy versus modified Manchester , 2020, International Urogynecology Journal.
[4] K. Glavind,et al. Development of Cervical and Uterine Malignancies During Follow-Up After Manchester–Fothergill Procedure , 2020 .
[5] K. Kluivers,et al. Sacrospinous hysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension in women with uterine prolapse stage 2 or higher: observational follow-up of a multicentre randomised trial , 2019, BMJ.
[6] E. S. Tiersma,et al. Evaluation of two vaginal, uterus sparing operations for pelvic organ prolapse: modified Manchester operation (MM) and sacrospinous hysteropexy (SSH), a study protocol for a multicentre randomized non-inferiority trial (the SAM study) , 2019, BMC Women's Health.
[7] F Reed Johnson,et al. The Internal Validity of Discrete Choice Experiment Data: A Testing Tool for Quantitative Assessments. , 2019, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.
[8] I. Giarenis,et al. Trends in prolapse surgery in England , 2018, International Urogynecology Journal.
[9] E. Balk,et al. Uterine preservation vs hysterectomy in pelvic organ prolapse surgery: a systematic review with meta‐analysis and clinical practice guidelines , 2018, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.
[10] A. Staff,et al. The Manchester procedure: anatomical, subjective and sexual outcomes , 2018, International Urogynecology Journal.
[11] K. Kluivers,et al. Dutch women's attitudes towards hysterectomy and uterus preservation in surgical treatment of pelvic organ prolapse. , 2018, European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology.
[12] Emily Lancsar,et al. Discrete Choice Experiments: A Guide to Model Specification, Estimation and Software , 2017, PharmacoEconomics.
[13] M. Söderberg,et al. Cervical amputation versus vaginal hysterectomy: a population-based register study , 2016, International Urogynecology Journal.
[14] Lisa A Prosser,et al. Statistical Methods for the Analysis of Discrete-Choice Experiments: A Report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Good Research Practices Task Force. , 2016, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.
[15] E. Lukacz,et al. Quality of Life and Sexual Function 2 Years After Vaginal Surgery for Prolapse , 2016, Obstetrics and gynecology.
[16] H. Goldman,et al. Uterine Conservation During Prolapse Repair: 9-Year Experience at a Single Institution , 2016, Female pelvic medicine & reconstructive surgery.
[17] K. Kluivers,et al. Sacrospinous hysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy with suspension of the uterosacral ligaments in women with uterine prolapse stage 2 or higher: multicentre randomised non-inferiority trial , 2015, BMJ : British Medical Journal.
[18] B. Ottesen,et al. Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) surgery among Danish women hysterectomized for benign conditions: age at hysterectomy, age at subsequent POP operation, and risk of POP after hysterectomy , 2015, International Urogynecology Journal.
[19] V. Sung,et al. Patient preferences for uterine preservation and hysterectomy in women with pelvic organ prolapse. , 2013, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.
[20] J. Jelovsek,et al. Attitudes Toward Hysterectomy in Women Undergoing Evaluation for Uterovaginal Prolapse , 2013, Female pelvic medicine & reconstructive surgery.
[21] K. Kluivers,et al. Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse and uterine descent in the Netherlands , 2013, International Urogynecology Journal.
[22] Kuan-Hui Huang,et al. Changing trends of surgical approaches for uterine prolapse: an 11-year population-based nationwide descriptive study , 2012, International Urogynecology Journal.
[23] Andrew Lloyd,et al. Conjoint analysis applications in health--a checklist: a report of the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force. , 2011, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.
[24] Ranee Thakar,et al. Conservative versus surgical management of prolapse: what dictates patient choice? , 2009, International Urogynecology Journal.
[25] S. S. Schraffordt Koops,et al. The effectiveness of the sacrospinous hysteropexy for the primary treatment of uterovaginal prolapse , 2007, International Urogynecology Journal.
[26] O. Ozyuncu,et al. The Manchester operation for uterine prolapse , 2006, International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics.
[27] J. Bhaumik,et al. Sacrospinous cervicocolpopexy with uterine conservation for uterovaginal prolapse in elderly women: an evolving concept. , 2003, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.
[28] G. Bracco,et al. True incidence of vaginal vault prolapse. Thirteen years of experience. , 1999, The Journal of reproductive medicine.