Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17618742›Full record

SynthesisAmerican journal of obstetrics and gynecology2007

Comparison of retropubic vs transobturator approach to midurethral slings: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Vivian W Sung, Mark D Schleinitz, Charles R Rardin, Renee M Ward, Deborah L Myers

Abstract readComparative StudyMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in American journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

45 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Stress incontinence.BMJ clinical evidence · 2009
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Day case transobturator tapes: a cut and dried solution.Irish journal of medical science · 2017
    Article
  20. 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

5 authors.

Vivian W SungDivision of Urogynecology and Reconstructive Pelvic Surgery, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Brown Medical School, Brown University, Providence, RI, USA.
Mark D Schleinitz
Charles R Rardin
Renee M Ward
Deborah L Myers

Funding

Brown/WIH Women's Reproductive Health Research Career Development ProgramK12HD050108 · NICHD · WOMEN AND INFANTS HOSPITAL-RHODE ISLAND · PI HAMPTON, BRITTANY STAR · 2005 to 2019
$4.1M
NICHD NIH HHS 5-K12-HD050108-02NICHD NIH HHS K12 HD050108NICHD NIH HHS L30 HD054004
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To systematically review the literature and to quantitatively compare outcomes and complications following retropubic vs transobturator approach to midurethral slings. We searched PUBMED, OVID, EMBASE, CINAHL, POPLINE, Web of Science, Cochrane Collaboration resources, TRIP, Global Health databases, and abstracts from relevant meetings from 1990 to 2006. We included all studies that compared retropubic and transobturator approaches to midurethral slings and that defined outcomes. We used random-effects models to estimate pooled odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for objective and subjective failure, complications, and de novo irritative voiding symptoms. Six randomized trials and 11 cohort studies compared transobturator and retropubic approaches to midurethral slings. There was insufficient evidence to support if one approach leads to better objective outcomes. We found no difference in subjective failure between the 2 approaches after pooling data from randomized trials (pooled odds ratio OR 0.85, confidence interval 95% CI 0.38-1.92). The transobturator approach was associated with a decreased risk of complications (pooled OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.19-0.83]). The transobturator approach to midurethral slings is associated with a lower risk of complications; however, it is still unclear if one approach results in superior objective or subjective outcomes.

Indexed as

Cohort StudiesFemaleHumansMinimally Invasive Surgical ProceduresPostoperative ComplicationsProsthesis ImplantationRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRisk FactorsSuburethral SlingsTreatment OutcomeUrinary Incontinence, StressUrologic Surgical ProceduresVagina

Identifiers

PMID17618742
PMCPMC2034345

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.