ReviewWorld journal of urology2015
Outcome measures for stress urinary incontinence treatment: can we minimally agree?
Review in World journal of urology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Abdominal Body Contouring Can Improve The Stress Urinary Incontinence: A Single-Arm Meta-analysis.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Validation of Incontinence Outcome Questionnaire for Serbian Population.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Article
- Effect of surgeon volume on long-term quality of life outcomes following tension-free vaginal tape surgery.International urogynecology journal · 2022Article
- Construction of Progress Prediction Model of Urinary Incontinence in Elderly Women: Protocol for a Multi-Center, Prospective Cohort Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Nampt promotes fibroblast extracellular matrix degradation in stress urinary incontinence by inhibiting autophagy.Bioengineered · 2022Article
- Cultural adaptation and validation of the Turkish CONTILIFE: a quality of life questionnaire for urinary incontinence.International urogynecology journal · 2019Article
- Are we underestimating the rates of incontinence after prostate cancer treatment? Results from NHANES.International urology and nephrology · 2017Article
- King's Health Questionnaire to assess subjective outcomes after surgical treatment for urinary incontinence: can it be useful?International urogynecology journal · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of the study was to present the different outcome measures used to evaluate stress urinary incontinence (SUI) surgical treatments and to discuss their interests.
methodA review of the literature based on the PubMed and Cochrane Library databases was performed using the following keywords alone and/or in combination: SUI, outcomes, surgery, questionnaires, meta-analysis, and quality of life. The research was restricted to the English and French language between 1995 and 2014.
resultsTo assess the outcomes of a SUI surgery, it is relevant to report objective measurements, subjective outcomes, and surgical complications. Discrepancies exist in the use of tools. Voiding diaries have not been regularly adopted in practice contrary to pad test. Urodynamic measures did not predict the outcomes after surgery for SUI. Less than 40 % of surgeons used the most scientifically validated urinary incontinence symptom and QOL questionnaires as outcome measures (IIQ, IIQ-7, KHQ, I-QOL, UDI, or UDI-6). Due to time constraints, unfamiliarity with many of the tools, and a lack of widely accepted efficacy criteria, validated quality of life and symptom-related questionnaires are underused by clinicians in routine practice.
conclusionThere is no consensus on the best way to define treatment success in the context of SUI. However, it is acknowledged that including patient-reported outcomes is essential. There is a need to uniform outcomes reporting tools to be able to compare data across studies and perform meaningful meta-analyses.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25791786What 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.