Effects of intravaginal conjugated oestrogen on pessary continuation for pelvic organ prolapse: multicentre, randomised, double blind, placebo controlled trial.

Name: Αlpha¹ Rigor Record — Effects of intravaginal conjugated oestrogen on pessary continuation for pelvic organ prolapse: multicentre, randomised, double blind, placebo controlled trial.
Item: Effects of intravaginal conjugated oestrogen on pessary continuation for pelvic organ prolapse: multicentre, randomised, double blind, placebo controlled trial.
Rating: 100
Author: Αlpha¹

Zhou Y, Yin R, Zhang Y, Wang X, Jin F, Li X, Peng C, Wang P, Shen H, Weng Q, Xie H, Wang H, Jiang B, Zhou K, Liang N, He Y, Dai Y, Fang Z, Liang S, Zhang Y, Morse A, Zhu L

Paper source

Read full text (PMC)

Embed this Rigor badge

Αlpha¹ Rigor Review — 4★ (Strong), 0 critical, 3 high issues for “Effects of intravaginal conjugated oestrogen on pessary continuation for pelvic organ prolapse: multicentre, randomised, double blind, placebo controlled trial.”

Links back to this Rigor Record.

Αlpha¹ Editorial

This rigor review was examined and confirmed by Αlpha¹ Editorial · August 15, 2026

Αlpha¹ Rigor Review

Rigor Reviewed

4 / 5

Strong — minor issues to address

Interventional Study

Critical

High-priority

How this rating was calculated▸

Started at 5★ — deductions

IntegrityIntegrity concern ×2−1★

Model-reported confidence: highReviewer agreement: highEngine: 7.39.0Source: full text

Not verified in this report

The numeric-impossibility checks (GRIM/GRIMMER/DEBIT/SPRITE) did not run: 9 reported means were read, and their group size is not stated where the values are printed (this source has no machine-readable table structure). These checks need the count the mean was averaged over, so none was performed.

Problems surfaced2 types

Numerical inconsistencies1

Values that contradict each other or are impossible for the stated sample: recomputed p-values and test statistics, GRIM/GRIMMER checks on summary numbers, percentages against their own counts, totals against their parts, and estimates against their own confidence intervals.

Internal contradictions in the reported numbersAssessed

Overstated conclusions1

Conclusions that reach past what the paper's own results support — including a significance claim that no longer holds when the statistic is recomputed, and efficacy resting on an unvalidated surrogate endpoint.

Conclusions only partially backed by the presented evidenceAssessed

This Αlpha¹ Rigor Review uses AI Rigor Reviewers trained on a curated corpus of high-fidelity and retracted papers, with expert supervision and curation. It can still make mistakes; verify each finding against the source before relying on it.

This is a well-conducted, rigorously reported randomised controlled trial. The study design, ethical approvals, and statistical reporting are strong, with clear data and code availability. Minor reporting gaps include lack of explicit statistical software name, CONSORT adherence statement, and regulatory compliance statement, plus minor copyedit issues.

Both reviewers classified the study as interventional, and I adopted that. The evaluation covered all eight dimensions; not applicable sub-criteria (e.g., animal-related, cell lines) were excluded. The statistics verification checked only 3 tests (all consistent); other statistics were not machine-verified. The reproducibility check found 1 link but could not confirm it was live.

3 major claims checked against the paper's own evidence: 1 only partially supported (evidence backs part of the claim; gaps or caveats remain); the rest adequately supported.

Recomputed 3 tests: 3 consistent, 0 inconsistent; 3 via agent-written checks.

2 integrity concerns flagged (0 high).

Reporting

Eight Dimensions8 pass

The introduction cites prior studies and a Cochrane review, noting limitations such as small sample sizes and lack of patient-reported outcomes. The rationale for the trial is clearly linked to these gaps, and the study aims to address them with a larger, blinded, placebo-controlled design.

Sub-criteria

prior work citedADEQUATE

premise rationaleADEQUATE

limitations addressedADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 95% conf

The paper establishes a clear scientific premise by citing prior research, identifying gaps, and providing a logical rationale for the study.

Evidence

direct quote[Introduction, paragraph 3]

“A Cochrane review published in 2023 identified three randomised controlled trials that assessed oestrogen treatment in conjunction with vaginal pessaries versus vaginal pessaries alone. None of these studies examined patient reported subjective improvement of POP symptoms, and they only reported reduction in minor adverse vaginal events including bacterial vaginosis and vaginal ulcers. Additionally, they were small studies (with 216 patients in total) and had methodological issues including blinding.”