Evidence map›Paper›PMID 10796815›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2000

Anterior vaginal repair for urinary incontinence in women.

C M Glazener, K Cooper

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 101 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Advances in managing pelvic floor disorders.F1000 medicine reports · 2009
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Nonautologous sling materials.Current urology reports · 2001
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

C M GlazenerHealth Services Research Unit (Flea), University of Aberdeen, Foresterhill Lea, Foresterhill, Aberdeen, Aberdeenshire, UK, AB25 2ZD. c.glazener@abdn.ac.uk
K Cooper
NHS Grampian · GBUniversity of Aberdeen · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAnterior vaginal repair (anterior colporrhaphy) is an operation traditionally used for moderate or severe stress urinary incontinence in women. About a third of adult women experience urinary incontinence.

objectivesTo determine the effects of anterior vaginal repair (anterior colporrhaphy) on stress or mixed urinary incontinence in comparison with other management options. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group's trials register, and the reference lists of relevant articles. Date of most recent search: March 1999. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised trials that included anterior vaginal repair for the treatment of urinary incontinence. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Both reviewers independently extracted data and assessed trial quality. One trial investigator was contacted for additional information. MAIN

resultsFive trials were identified which included 208 women having an anterior vaginal repair and 400 who received comparison interventions. A single small trial provided insufficient evidence to assess anterior repair in comparison with physical therapy. The performance of anterior repair in comparison with needle suspension appeared similar but clinically important differences could not be confidently ruled out. No trials compared anterior repair with sling or laparoscopic interventions, or compared alternative vaginal operations. Anterior repair was less effective than abdominal retropubic suspension based on patient-reported cure rates in four trials both in the short-term (failure rate within first year after anterior repair 48/198, 24% vs 30/266, 11%; RR 2.15, 95% CI 1.4 to 3.28) and long-term (80/193, 41% vs 51/261, 20%; RR 2.25, 95% CI 1.66 to 3.04). There was some evidence from one of these trials that this was reflected in fewer repeat operations for incontinence. These findings held irrespective of the co-existence of prolapse (pelvic relaxation). Although later prolapse operation appeared to be equally common after vaginal or abdominal operation there were too few data to judge this reliably. In respect of the type of abdominal retropubic suspension, most data related to comparisons of anterior repair with Burch colposuspension. The few data describing comparison of anterior repair with the Marshall-Marchetti-Krantz procedure were consistent with those for Burch colposuspension. REVIEWER'S

conclusionsThere were not enough data to allow comparison of anterior vaginal repair with physical therapy or needle suspension for primary urinary stress incontinence in women. Abdominal retropubic suspension appeared to be better than anterior vaginal repair judged on subjective cure rates in four trials, even in women who had prolapse in addition to stress incontinence. The need for repeat incontinence surgery also appeared less after the abdominal operation, but this was only reported in one small trial. However, there was not enough information about post-operative complications and morbidity.

Indexed as

AdultFemaleGynecologic Surgical ProceduresHumansUrinary IncontinenceVagina

Identifiers

PMID10796815
OpenAlexW4248532539

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.