Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24318564›Full record

ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2014

Outcomes following treatment for pelvic floor mesh complications.

C A Unger, S Abbott, J M Evans, K Jallad, K Mishra, M M Karram, C B Iglesia, C R Rardin, M D Barber

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International urogynecology journal, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. [Vaginal pelvic floor reconstruction techniques].Urologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2025
    Review
  2. Platelet-Rich Plasma and Fractional COInternational urogynecology journal · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. [The preliminary study on biomechanical properties of four synthetic implants for reconstructive surgery of pelvic floor dysfunction].Sheng wu yi xue gong cheng xue za zhi = Journal of biomedical engineering = Shengwu yixue gongchengxue zazhi · 2018
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Pelvic Prolapse Repair in the Era of Mesh.Current urology reports · 2016
    Review
  7. Indications and risk factors for midurethral sling revision.International urogynecology journal · 2016
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

C A UngerCenter for Urogynecology and Reconstructive Pelvic Surgery, Obstetrics, Gynecology & Women's Health Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Mail Code A81, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA, cecile.a.unger@gmail.com.
S Abbott
J M Evans
K Jallad
K Mishra
M M Karram
C B Iglesia
C R Rardin
M D Barber
Cleveland Clinic · USChrist Hospital · USMedStar Washington Hospital Center · USProvidence College · USWomen & Infants Hospital of Rhode Island · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introduction and hypothesisOur aim was to determine symptoms and degree of improvement in a cohort of women who presented following treatment for vaginal mesh complications.

methodsThis study was a follow-up to a multicenter, retrospective study of women who presented to four tertiary referral centers for management of vaginal-mesh-related complications. Study participants completed a one-time follow-up survey regarding any additional treatment, current symptoms, and degree of improvement from initial presentation.

resultsTwo hundred and sixty women received surveys; we had a response rate of 41.1 % (107/260). Complete data were available for 101 respondents. Survey respondents were more likely to be postmenopausal (p = 0.006), but otherwise did not differ from nonrespondents. Fifty-one percent (52/101) of women underwent surgery as the primary intervention for their mesh complication; 8 % (4/52) underwent a second surgery; 34 % (17/52) required a second nonsurgical intervention. Three patients required three or more surgeries. Of the 30 % (30/101) of respondents who reported pelvic pain prior to intervention, 63 % (19/30) reported improvement, 30 % (9/30) were worse, and 7 % (2/30) reported no change. Of the 33 % (33/101) who reported voiding dysfunction prior to intervention, 61 % (20/33) reported being at least somewhat bothered by these symptoms.

conclusionsAbout 50 % of women with mesh complications in this study underwent surgical management as treatment, and <10 % required a second surgery. Most patients with pain preintervention reported significant improvement after treatment; however, almost a third reported worsening pain or no change after surgical management. Less than half of patients with voiding dysfunction improved after intervention.

Indexed as

Equipment FailureFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMulticenter Studies as TopicPelvic FloorPostoperative ComplicationsRetrospective StudiesSurgical MeshTreatment OutcomeVagina

Identifiers

PMID24318564
OpenAlexW2093917513

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.