ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2014
The surgical trends and time-frame comparison of primary surgery for stress urinary incontinence, 2006-2010 vs 1997-2005: a population-based nation-wide follow-up descriptive study.
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, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- What a mesh! An Australian experience using national female continence surgery trends over 20 years.World journal of urology · 2021Article
- Female stress urinary incontinence surgery: 'Resurgence of the Titans'.Turkish journal of urology · 2021Article
- Changing surgical trends for female stress urinary incontinence in England.International urogynecology journal · 2019Article
- Effect of anesthesia type on perioperative outcomes with a midurethral sling.International urogynecology journal · 2016Article
- Epidemiological trends and future care needs for pelvic floor disorders.Current opinion in obstetrics & gynecology · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisThe purpose of our study was to describe the surgical trends for female stress urinary incontinence (SUI) during 2006-2010, and a time-frame comparison with 1997-2005, based upon the National Health Insurance (NHI) claims data in Taiwan.
methodsWomen who underwent various primary surgeries for SUI during 2006-2010 were identified, with a total of 15,099 inpatients. The variables included surgical types, patient age, surgeon age and gender, specialty, and hospital accreditation levels. Chi-squared tests and SAS version 9.3.1 were used for statistical analysis.
resultsDuring the follow-up study, midurethral sling (MUS) application increased significantly from 53.09 % in 2006 to 78.74 % in 2010. It was associated concomitantly with a decrease in retropubic urethropexy (RPU) from 29.68 % to 12.99 %, and pubovaginal sling treatment (PVS) from 9.33 % to 3.46 %. MUS was most commonly used among all patients' and surgeons' age groups, and different accreditation hospital levels. MUS was more commonly used by gynecologists (71.38 %) than urologists (57.91 %); while PVS and periurethral injection were more commonly performed by urologists than gynecologists. Similar surgical trends were found during time-frame comparison, 2006-2010 vs 1997-2005. SUI surgeries increased in patients aged ≥60, surgeons aged ≥ 50, and in regional hospitals.
conclusionThis follow-up study depicts the increase in popularity of MUS and offers evidence of surgical trends and a paradigm shift for female SUI surgery. More older women were willing to seek healthcare and undergo surgery. The surgical skills and knowledge spread from medical centers into regional hospitals. The time-frame shift may have a profound impact on patients, as well as the healthcare providers.
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.