ReviewCurrent urology reports2013
Retropubic versus transobturator slings--are the outcomes changing with time?
Review in Current urology reports, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of this review is to review the most current patient reported (subjective) and physician reported (objective) outcomes and adverse events associated with retropubic (RMUS) and transobturator (TMUS) mid-urethral slings. Since the two landmark meta-analyses published in 2010, four new RCT have been published and five have reported long-term outcomes comparing RMUS versus TMUS. Both RMUS and TMUS are safe and have efficacious longer-term outcomes. There is no difference between these slings' subjective outcomes. There is still debate regarding whether RMUS is slightly superior when assessing objective outcomes. Although three trials showed no difference in objective outcomes, results from the largest trial show that RMUS is superior. Further analysis suggests that women with poor urethral function have less favorable outcomes with TMUS and may do better with RMUS. Adverse events are common, and they differ depending on the surgical approach. These new trials confirm previous reported adverse events.
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.