Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17384895›Full record

ArticleInternational urogynecology journal and pelvic floor dysfunction2007

Urogynaecological research: current and future developments.

Gunnar Lose

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International urogynecology journal and pelvic floor dysfunction, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. While we wait for a new regulatory framework for surgical mesh.International urogynecology journal · 2012
    Article
  2. Authors should publish their raw data.International urogynecology journal and pelvic floor dysfunction · 2007
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Gunnar LoseDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Glostrup Municipal Hospital, Ndr. Ringvej, 2600, Glostrup, Denmark. gulo@glo.regionh.dk

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The massive introduction of new products from device and drug industries together with a scanty device approval process and a growing scepticism about the reliability of drug trials call for new improved strategies in urogynaecological research. Device companies and physicians have a mutual ethical responsibility of contributing to create clinical data based on the framework of trials in surgery before new surgical products are implemented and disseminated. In respect of the patients' altruism and confidence, which make drug trials possible, the industry and academia have an obligation to conduct and report clinical results in accordance with the highest standards of scientific and ethical integrity.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicDisclosureEquipment SafetyFemaleHumansPelvic FloorUrogenital Surgical Procedures

Identifiers

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.