ArticleCurrent urology reports2012
An appraisal of the Food and Drug Administration warning on urogynecologic surgical mesh.
Article in Current urology reports, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Impact of Surgeon's Expirience and Volume on Pelvic Reconstructive Surgery Outcome.International urogynecology journal · 2026Review
- Tobacco use, immunosuppressive, chronic pain, and psychiatric conditions are prevalent in women with symptomatic mesh complications undergoing mesh removal surgery.Investigative and clinical urology · 2020Article
- Canadian Urological Association position statement on the use of transvaginal mesh.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2017Review
- Pelvic organ prolapse surgical management in Portugal and FDA safety communication have an impact on vaginal mesh.International urogynecology journal · 2015Article
- Coating with autologous plasma improves biocompatibility of mesh grafts in vitro: development stage of a surgical innovation.BioMed research international · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Currently, there is no consensus on the use of mesh in transvaginal surgical repairs for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse. This review recapitulates and assesses the recent U. S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warnings about the use of surgical mesh in transvaginal pelvic organ prolapse repair and summarizes the responses of the national organizations that represent the health care providers most invested in treating patients with transvaginal surgical mesh. Mesh exposure or extrusion through the vaginal wall, true mesh erosion into viscera, and infection are the major complications that are currently used to define the safety of synthetic mesh use. Other potential adverse postsurgical outcomes that can affect quality of life, sexual function, and patient satisfaction include dyspareunia, "hispareunia" (ie, complaints of a sexual partner), prosthetic contraction or prominence, vaginal shortening, pelvic pain, urinary dysfunction, and failure of the repair. These outcomes are frequently attributed to mesh use, and can result in expense, frustration, and the need for further medical and surgical interventions for patients undergoing treatment for pelvic floor disorders. Information regarding the FDA's reports on the use of surgical mesh in pelvic organ prolapse repair should be made available to patients at the time of surgical planning and should be used as an adjunct in the process of obtaining informed consent.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.