Trial reportInternational urogynecology journal2013
Clinical efficacy of a trocar-guided mesh kit for repairing lateral defects.
Trial report in International urogynecology journal, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- A systematic review of outcome and outcome-measure reporting in randomised trials evaluating surgical interventions for anterior-compartment vaginal prolapse: a call to action to develop a core outcome set.International urogynecology journal · 2018Pooled it
- The IUGA/ICS classification of synthetic mesh complications in female pelvic floor reconstructive surgery: a multicenter study.International urogynecology journal · 2016Article
- Traditional native tissue vs mesh-augmented pelvic organ prolapse repairs: providing an accurate interpretation of current literature. Comment.International urogynecology journal · 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
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisThe optimal surgery for lateral defects is not well defined. Our objective was to assess the effects of anterior trocar-guided transvaginal mesh repair versus anterior colporrhaphy in women with lateral defects.
methodsThis subanalysis from a randomized controlled trial of mesh kit versus anterior colporrhaphy assessed 99 patient diagnosed at baseline with lateral defects in the anterior vaginal wall. Thirty-nine patients underwent anterior colporrhaphy and 60 anterior trocar-guided transvaginal mesh surgery.
resultsOne year after surgery, a persistent lateral defect was significantly more common after colporrhaphy compared with transvaginal mesh [11/32 (34.4 %) vs 1/42 (2.4 %), risk ratio (RR) 14.4, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 2.0-106.1; P < 0.001)] However, there were no significant differences between treatment groups with regard to subjective symptoms as reflected by the overall Urogenital Distress Inventory scores, with mean difference from baseline 37.3 ± 50.6 in the colporrhaphy group vs 39.0 ± 45.8 in the mesh group (p = 0.61).
conclusionsUse of a transvaginal mesh kit increases the odds for anatomical correction of lateral defects compared with anterior colporrhaphy but does not necessarily improve lower urinary tract symptoms.
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.