ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2010
Risk factors leading to midurethral sling revision: a multicenter case-control study.
Article in International urogynecology journal, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Voided volume for postoperative voiding assessment following prolapse and urinary incontinence surgery.International urogynecology journal · 2021Article
- Risk Factors for Returning to the Operating Room for a Second Surgery After Midurethral Sling for Stress Urinary Incontinence.Female pelvic medicine & reconstructive surgery · 2020Article
- A comprehensive look at risk factors for mid-urethral sling revision surgery.International urogynecology journal · 2020Article
- [Urodynamic studies prior to urinary incontinence surgery : What is useful?]Der Urologe. Ausg. A · 2017Review
- Management of patients with stress urinary incontinence after failed midurethral sling.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2017Review
- Indications and risk factors for midurethral sling revision.International urogynecology journal · 2016Article
- Comparing the risk of urethrolysis for the treatment of voiding dysfunction between two retropubic mesh slings: a case-control study.International urogynecology journal · 2013Article
- The Fellows' Pelvic Research Network (FPRN) 5 years later: an update.International urogynecology journal · 2013Article
- Predictive factors that influence treatment outcomes of innovative single incision sling: comparing TVT-Secur to an established transobturator sling for female stress urinary incontinence.International urogynecology journal · 2012Article
- Evaluation and management of voiding dysfunction after midurethral sling procedures.Journal of the Turkish German Gynecological Association · 2012Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisTo determine risk factors for sling revision after midurethral sling (MUS) placement.
methodsThis multicenter case-control study included patients who underwent MUS placement and subsequent revision secondary to voiding dysfunction from January 1999-2007 from nine Urogynecology centers across the USA. Direct logistic regression analysis was used to determine which diagnostic variables predicted sling revision.
resultsOf the patients, 197 met the study criteria. Patient demographics, urodynamic findings, and operative differences did not increase the risk for sling revision. Risk factors for sling revision did include: pre-existing voiding symptoms (OR 2.76, 95% CI 1.32-5.79; p = 0.004) retropubic sling type (OR = 2.28, 95% CI 1.08-4.78; p = 0.04) and concurrent surgery (OR = 4.88, 95% CI 2.16-11.05; p < 0.001)
conclusionsThis study determined that pre-existing obstructive voiding symptoms, retropubic sling type, and concurrent surgery at the time of sling placement are risk factors for sling revision.
Indexed as
Identifiers
20552167What 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.