ArticleObstetrics and gynecology2013
Effectiveness of mesh compared with nonmesh sling surgery in Medicare beneficiaries.
Article in Obstetrics and gynecology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mortality and Reoperation Following Midurethral Sling Versus Urethral Bulking in Older Women.Urology · 2022Article
- Safety considerations for synthetic sling surgery.Nature reviews. Urology · 2015Review
- The effects of menopause on the quality of life and long-term outcomes of transobturator tape treatment in women with stres urinary incontinence.International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of UrologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the effectiveness of mesh compared with nonmesh slings placed in different surgical settings as measured by the frequency of complications within 1 year.
methodsWe performed a retrospective cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries undergoing sling surgery from 2006 to 2008 in hospital outpatient departments and hospital-based ambulatory surgery centers. Slings were identified and categorized according to the use of mesh by Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System codes and temporary "C" Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System codes. Patients were followed for 1 year after each procedure to identify complications. Logistic models were fit to assess relationships among sling type, surgical setting, and various complications.
resultsWe identified 6,698 Medicare beneficiaries who underwent mesh sling procedures and 445 Medicare beneficiaries who underwent nonmesh sling procedures. The overall frequency of complications was similar between the two groups at 69.8% and 72.6% in the mesh and nonmesh groups, respectively (P=.22). Infectious complications were the most common complication at 45.4% and 50.1% of the mesh and nonmesh groups, respectively (P=.06). Patients undergoing mesh procedures were less likely than patients undergoing nonmesh procedures to require management for bladder outlet obstruction (13.9% compared with 19.3%, adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.52-0.85) and were less likely to have a subsequent sling removal and revision or urethrolysis (2.7% compared with 4.7%, adjusted OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.35-0.89).
conclusionFrequencies of most complications were similar regardless of the use of mesh except for the management of bladder outlet obstruction. These results did not differ based on the surgical setting where the sling procedure was performed. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.
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.