SynthesisDer Urologe. Ausg. A2009
[Stress urinary incontinence. Evidence for 4 minimally invasive methods of treating - systematic overview].
Synthesis in Der Urologe. Ausg. A, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Reconstructive surgery for male stress urinary incontinence: Experiences using the ATOMS(®) system at a single center.GMS Interdisciplinary plastic and reconstructive surgery DGPW · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStress urinary incontinence is a common problem. A systematic review of 4 minimally invasive methods (Safyre, ACT, Argus, and ProACT) was undertaken to evaluate these methods and formulate recommendations. MATERIALS AND
methodsMedline, EMBASE, databases of the University of York Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, databases of the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment, and other web sites were searched for relevant literature. Nine studies were selected. Their core data were translated to extraction tables under peer review, the quality of evidence was assessed by the GRADE scheme, and for each method a recommendation was made.
resultsFor 2 of the methods (Safyre and ProACT), a restricted positive recommendation was made; for the other 2 methods, the quality of evidence was too low for a recommendation to be expressed.
conclusionThe Safyre sling and the ProACT microballoon are methods for which the available evidence indicates a net benefit, but new studies may have a significant impact on the estimate of their effect. A later assessment of the evidence is therefore recommended.
Indexed as
Identifiers
19690828What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.