ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2014
Carcinogenicity of implantable materials: experimental and epidemiological evidence.
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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mutation or not, what directly establishes a neoplastic state, namely cellular immortality and autonomy, still remains unknown and should be prioritized in our research.Journal of Cancer · 2022Review
- A prospective study on cancer risk after total hip replacements for 41,402 patients linked to the Cancer registry of Norway.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2020Article
- Carcinogenic potential of polypropylene mid-urethral slings: what do we know so far?International urogynecology journal · 2017Review
- Current controversies regarding oncologic risk associated with polypropylene midurethral slings.Current urology reports · 2014Article
- Carcinogenicity of implanted synthetic grafts and devices.International urogynecology journal · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recent product-liability litigation concerning polypropylene meshes has been associated with a number of claims about the suitability of these meshes for conditions such as pelvic organ prolapse (POP) surgery. It has been stated, for example, that they pose a risk for tumor formation on the basis of some animal studies that have appeared in the literature and on a few suggestions of circumstantial evidence. However, it is clear that studies of biomaterial-related tumors in animals have no relevance to clinical performance in humans. If anything, these studies predict that smooth, flat, implant surfaces are more at risk, which places polypropylene meshes in the least-risk category. Attempts to demonstrate implant-induced carcinogenicity from population studies in humans with many types of devices have routinely failed to do so.
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.