Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24515329›Full record

ReviewCurrent urology reports2014

Urgency after a sling: review of the management.

Nitya Abraham, Sandip Vasavada

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current urology reports, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
4.3field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 42 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. The evolution of incontinence into resolved, refractory andInvestigative and clinical urology · 2021
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Frontiers in surgery · 2019
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Mixed urinary incontinence: what first?Current urology reports · 2015
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Nitya AbrahamGlickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Ave Q10-1, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA, abrahan@ccf.org.
Sandip Vasavada
Cleveland Clinic · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Urinary urgency after synthetic sling surgery may be persistent urgency that preceded the surgery or de novo urgency that developed after surgery. Recent studies estimate a 40 % rate of persistent urgency after synthetic sling surgery in women with mixed urinary incontinence. Causes of de novo urgency after synthetic sling surgery include postoperative urinary tract infection (7.4-17.4 %), bladder outlet obstruction (1.9-19.7 %), perforation of the urinary tract (0.5-5 %), and idiopathic urgency (0-28 %). Given the temporal relationship of de novo urgency developing after surgery, until proven otherwise, one should assume that the etiology is obstruction. Evaluation includes a history and physical exam, urinalysis, and post-void residual. Cystoscopy and urodynamics may help rule out surgical complications. Management is based on the etiology of the urgency. Urinary tract perforation and bladder outlet obstruction are treated with surgical intervention. Idiopathic de novo or persistent urgency after synthetic sling surgery are treated similarly to idiopathic overactive bladder, with behavioral therapy as first-line treatment, antimuscarinics or beta-agonists as second-line therapy, and intravesical onabotulinumtoxinA or sacral neuromodulation as third-line therapy.

Indexed as

Suburethral SlingsAdrenergic beta-AgonistsBehavior TherapyBotulinum Toxins, Type AFemaleHumansImplantable NeurostimulatorsLumbosacral PlexusMuscarinic AntagonistsNeuromuscular AgentsPostoperative ComplicationsTreatment OutcomeUrinary Incontinence, UrgeAdrenergic beta-AgonistsBotulinum Toxins, Type AMuscarinic AntagonistsNeuromuscular Agents

Identifiers

PMID24515329
OpenAlexW2018630567

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.