A randomised controlled trial evaluating the use of polyglactin mesh, polydioxanone and polyglactin sutures for pelvic organ prolapse surgery

To compare the effectiveness of polyglactin mesh, and polydioxanone or polyglactin sutures in women having pelvic organ prolapse surgery. Randomised controlled trial with a factorial 2(2 design of polyglactin mesh or not, and polydioxanone or polyglactin suture. Outcomes were assessed using questionnaires at baseline and on the third day and at 6 months after surgery. Women were also examined clinically 3 months after surgery. The primary outcome was the subjective improvement in prolapse symptoms and quality of life scores from baseline to 6 months. There was a subjective improvement in the prolapse symptom score from baseline to 6 months after surgery (mean difference of 9.2 (95% CI for difference 7.2-11.2, p < 0.001) and an improvement in the mean quality of life score over the same period with a reduction of 3.4 (95% CI for difference 2.4-4.3, p < 0.001). However, there were no significant differences in the mean difference in prolapse symptoms and quality of life (QoL) scores according to the randomised groups. The majority (86%) of women were satisfied with their surgery. Our study demonstrated that at short-term follow-up, there was no significant difference in the mean differences in prolapse symptoms and QoL scores after surgery using polyglactin mesh or not, polyglactin or polyglactin sutures, but the numbers were too small for a definitive conclusion. Longer-term follow-up and/or a larger trial are required

Science Communication as a Collective Intelligence Endeavor: A Manifesto and Examples for Implementation

Effective science communication is challenging when scientific messages are informed by a continually updating evidence base and must often compete against misinformation. We argue that we need a new program of science communication as collective intelligence—a collaborative approach, supported by technology. This would have four key advantages over the typical model where scientists communicate as individuals: scientific messages would be informed by (a) a wider base of aggregated knowledge, (b) contributions from a diverse scientific community, (c) participatory input from stakeholders, and (d) better responsiveness to ongoing changes in the state of knowledge