ReviewInternational urogynecology journal2015
Heterogeneity in post-intervention prolapse and urinary outcome reporting: a one-year review of the International Urogynecology Journal.
Review in International urogynecology journal, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery challenges on behalf of the Collaborative Research in Pelvic Surgery Consortium: managing complicated cases : Series 5: management of recurrent stress urinary incontinence after midurethral sling exposure.International urogynecology journal · 2020Article
- Multivariate network meta-analysis incorporating class effects.BMC medical research methodology · 2020Article
- Urinary leakage during exercise: problematic activities, adaptive behaviors, and interest in treatment for physically active Canadian women.International urogynecology journal · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThis review aimed to examine post-intervention prolapse, incontinence, and overactive bladder outcome measures published in the International Urogynecology Journal over the previous year and to report on the heterogeneity in outcome reporting.
methodsAll original article abstracts published in the print version of the International Urogynecology Journal in 2014 were reviewed for possible inclusion. Those reporting on prolapse and/or incontinence and/or overactive bladder outcomes following a urogynecological intervention were analyzed. Articles were reviewed for all reported outcomes. Outcomes were categorized as primary or secondary and objective or subjective.
resultsOf 117 original articles published, 45 were reviewed. Among primary outcomes, 9 different outcomes were reported for prolapse and 11 for incontinence and overactive bladder. For prolapse, 6 different objective and 13 subjective outcomes were reported. For incontinence, 21 objective and 36 subjective outcomes were reported. Three different definitions were used for the outcome of "prolapse cure," 3 for "prolapse recurrence," and 4 for "stress incontinence cure." Several validated and non-validated questionnaires in addition to single unvalidated questions were used to measure subjective outcomes.
conclusionsThis research highlights the diversity in outcome reporting for prolapse, incontinence, and overactive bladder after an intervention in the last year of publications alone. This can lead to serious challenges in the generation of higher order evidence, such as systematic reviews and meta-analyses. As a subspecialty, we need to aim for more cohesive reporting so as to allow for robust comparison and evidence dissemination.
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.