Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25733928›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of women's health2015

Transvaginal retropubic sling systems: efficacy and patient acceptability.

Christina P Moldovan, Michelle E Marinone, Andrea Staack

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of women's health, 2015. 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
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Management of mid-urethral tape complications: a retrospective study.Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology of India · 2020
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. A sequential comparison of postoperative voiding function between two different transobturator sling procedures.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada
    Article
  7. Current Treatments for Female Pelvic Floor Dysfunctions.Gynecology and minimally invasive therapy
    Review
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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Christina P MoldovanDepartment of Psychology, Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, California, United States of America.
Michelle E MarinoneSchool of Medicine, Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, California, United States of America.
Andrea StaackDepartment of Urology, Loma Linda University Medical Center, Loma Linda, California, United States of America.
Loma Linda University · USLoma Linda University Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Stress urinary incontinence is a common, disabling, and costly medical problem that affects approximately 50% of women with urinary incontinence. Suburethral retropubic slings have been developed as a minimally invasive and effective surgical option, and they have been used as a first-line treatment for stress urinary incontinence since 1995. However, complications including vaginal extrusion, erosion, pain, bleeding, infections, lower urinary tract symptoms, urinary retention, and incontinence have been reported with use of the slings. Several companies manufacture sling kits, and the sling kits vary with regard to the composition of the mesh and introducer needle. The aim of this review was to determine which sling kit was most effective for patients, had minimal reported side effects, and was best accepted by patients and surgeons. In a review of the literature, it was found that a total of 38 studies were published between 1995 and 2014 that reported on eight tension-free retropubic sling kits: SPARC, RetroArc, Align, Advantage, Lynx, Desara, Supris, and Gynecare TVT. The Gynecare TVT was the most cited sling kit; the second most cited was the SPARC. This review provides a summary of the studies that have examined positive and negative outcomes of the retropubic tension-free suburethral sling procedure using various sling kits. Overall, the results of the literature review indicated that data from comparisons of the available sling kits are insufficient to make an evidenced-based recommendation. Therefore, the decision regarding which sling kit is appropriate to use in surgery is determined by the medical provider's preference, training, and past experience, and not by the patient.

Indexed as

efficacyoutcomeretropubic sling kitsstress urinary incontinence

Identifiers

PMID25733928
PMCPMC4337501
OpenAlexW2019376679

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.