Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25143007›Full record

ReviewInternational urogynecology journal2015

The introduction of mid-urethral slings: an evaluation of literature.

Cornelis R C Hogewoning, Lieke Gietelink, Rob C M Pelger, Cornelis J A Hogewoning, Milou D Bekker, Henk W Elzevier

Erratum issuedAbstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in International urogynecology journal, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 83% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Cornelis R C HogewoningDepartment of Urology, Leiden University Medical Center, Postzone J3-P, P.O. Box 9600, 2300 RC, Leiden, The Netherlands, c.r.c.hogewoning@lumc.nl.
Lieke Gietelink
Rob C M Pelger
Cornelis J A Hogewoning
Milou D Bekker
Henk W Elzevier
Leiden University Medical Center · NLAlbert Schweitzer Ziekenhuis · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introduction and hypothesisThe objective of this study was to evaluate the degree and reliability of evidence used by manufacturers before the introduction of mid-urethral slings (MUS) onto the commercial market. Furthermore, minimum standards for marketed slings are recommended by evaluating recent suggestions for the introduction of gynecological meshes.

methodsA systematic literature search was conducted using PubMed and commercial internet search engines in order to identify slings introduced by the industry over the last decade. Moreover, manufacturers were contacted by email, mail, and phone to provide data from before the introduction of the slings onto the commercial market. Once contact had been initiated, a 6-month deadline was set for data collection.

resultsForty-one slings introduced between 1996 and 2012 were identified. Ten slings were described in a total of 20 studies with sample sizes varying from 10 to 368. The 41 MUS were produced by a total of 19 different companies. Seven companies never responded to recurrent emails, phone calls or other means of attempted contact. Thirty-one slings (76%) remained without any comparative pre-launch data.

conclusionsMid-urethral slings were often introduced without any scientifically proven basis or pre-launch research. The US Food and Drug Administration and the European authorities should undertake immediate action by imposing strict rules before the launch of new MUS comparable with those recently suggested for meshes used in vaginal prolapse surgery.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchEvidence-Based MedicineCommerceDevice ApprovalFemaleHumansManufacturing IndustrySuburethral SlingsUrinary Incontinence, Stress

Identifiers

PMID25143007
OpenAlexW2146734235

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.