Journals Library

Advanced

An error occurred retrieving content to display, please try again.

Home >> Journals >> Health Technology Assessment >> Page Not Found

Page not found (404)

Sorry - the page you requested could not be found.

Please choose a page from the navigation or try a website search above to find the information you need.

Home >> Journals >> Health Technology Assessment >> Volume {{metadata.Volume}} >> Issue {{metadata .Issue }}

View Project

There was no difference in symptoms or quality of life between uterine preservation versus vaginal hysterectomy for uterine prolapse or between abdominal versus vaginal approaches for vault prolapse.

{{author}}{{author}}{{($index < metadata.AuthorsAndEtalArray.length-1) ? ',' : '.'}}

Christine Hemming, Lynda Constable, Beatriz Goulao, Mary Kilonzo, Dwayne Boyers, Andrew Elders, Kevin Cooper, Anthony Smith, Robert Freeman, Suzanne Breeman, Alison McDonald, Suzanne Hagen, Isobel Montgomery, John Norrie & Cathryn Glazener.

Christine Hemming 1,*, Lynda Constable 2, Beatriz Goulao 2, Mary Kilonzo 3, Dwayne Boyers 3, Andrew Elders 4, Kevin Cooper 1, Anthony Smith 5, Robert Freeman 6, Suzanne Breeman 2, Alison McDonald 2, Suzanne Hagen 4, Isobel Montgomery 7, John Norrie 8, Cathryn Glazener 2

1 Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, NHS Grampian, Aberdeen, UK
2 Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
3 Health Economics Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
4 Nursing, Midwifery and Allied Health Professionals Research Unit (NMAHP RU), Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK
5 St Mary’s Hospital, Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
6 Derriford Hospital, Plymouth NHS Trust, Plymouth, UK
7 Independent patient representative, c/o Health Services Research Unit, Aberdeen, UK
8 Usher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics, Edinburgh BioQuarter, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
* Corresponding author Email: christine.hemming@nhs.net

Funding: {{metadata.Funding}}

{{metadata.Journal}} Volume: {{metadata.Volume}}, Issue: {{metadata.Issue}}, Published in {{metadata.PublicationDate | date:'MMMM yyyy'}}

https://doi.org/{{metadata.DOI}}

Citation: {{author}}{{ (($index < metadata.AuthorsArray.length-1) && ($index <=6)) ? ', ' : '' }}{{(metadata.AuthorsArray.length <= 6) ? '.' : '' }} {{(metadata.AuthorsArray.length > 6) ? 'et al.' : ''}} . {{metadata.JournalShortName}} {{metadata.PublicationDate | date:'yyyy'}};{{metadata.Volume}}({{metadata.Issue}})

Crossmark status check

Report Content

The full text of this issue is available as a PDF document from the Toolkit section on this page.

The full text of this issue is available as a PDF document from the Toolkit section on this page.

If you would like to receive a notification when this project publishes in the NIHR Journals Library, please submit your email address below.

 

Responses to this report

No responses have been published.

 

If you would like to submit a response to this publication, please do so using the form below:

Comments submitted to the NIHR Journals Library are electronic letters to the editor. They enable our readers to debate issues raised in research reports published in the Journals Library. We aim to post within 14 working days all responses that contribute substantially to the topic investigated, as determined by the Editors.  Non-relevant comments will be deleted.

Your name and affiliations will be published with your comment.

Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. The Editors may add, remove, or edit comments at their absolute discretion.

By submitting your response, you are stating that you agree to the terms & conditions

© NETSCC 2021