Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26106616›Full record

ArticleBioMed research international2015

An Open Multicenter Study of Clinical Efficacy and Safety of Urolastic, an Injectable Implant for the Treatment of Stress Urinary Incontinence: One-Year Observation.

Konrad Futyma, Paweł Miotła, Krzysztof Gałczyński, Włodzimierz Baranowski, Jacek Doniec, Agnieszka Wodzisławska, Maciej Jóźwik, Małgorzata Oniszczuk, Tomasz Rechberger

Open access · hybridAbstract readClinical Study
In one paragraph

Article in BioMed research international, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
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

9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Konrad Futyma2nd Department of Gynecology, Medical University of Lublin, Ulica Jaczewskiego 8, 20-954 Lublin, Poland.ORCID 0000-0001-7864-666X
Paweł Miotła2nd Department of Gynecology, Medical University of Lublin, Ulica Jaczewskiego 8, 20-954 Lublin, Poland.
Krzysztof Gałczyński2nd Department of Gynecology, Medical University of Lublin, Ulica Jaczewskiego 8, 20-954 Lublin, Poland.
Włodzimierz BaranowskiDepartment of Gynecology and Gynecologic Oncology, Military Institute of Medicine, Ulica Szaserów 128, 04-141 Warsaw, Poland.
Jacek DoniecDepartment of Gynecology and Gynecologic Oncology, Military Institute of Medicine, Ulica Szaserów 128, 04-141 Warsaw, Poland.
Agnieszka WodzisławskaDepartment of Gynecology and Gynecologic Oncology, Military Institute of Medicine, Ulica Szaserów 128, 04-141 Warsaw, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-6040-7158
Maciej JóźwikDepartment of Gynecology and Gynecologic Oncology, Medical University of Białystok, Ulica M. Skłodowskiej-Curie 24a, 15-276 Białystok, Poland.
Małgorzata OniszczukDepartment of Gynecology and Gynecologic Oncology, Medical University of Białystok, Ulica M. Skłodowskiej-Curie 24a, 15-276 Białystok, Poland.
Tomasz Rechberger2nd Department of Gynecology, Medical University of Lublin, Ulica Jaczewskiego 8, 20-954 Lublin, Poland.
Medical University of Lublin · PLWojskowy Instytut Medycyny Lotniczej · PLMedical University of Białystok · PL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The prevalence of stress urinary incontinence rises and affects up to 30% of women after 50 years of age. Midurethral slings are currently the mainstay of surgical anti-incontinence therapy. Some patients experience recurrent SUI (RSUI) which is defined as a failure of anti-incontinence surgery after a period of time or persistence of SUI after the procedure aimed at correcting it. The urethral bulking agent application decreases invasiveness of treatment and meets patients requirements. The objective of this study was to assess the safety and clinical efficacy of Urolastic injection. One hundred and five patients with SUI (including 91 patients with RSUI) were treated with Urolastic in three tertiary gynecological clinics. The efficacy of the procedure was assessed objectively at each follow-up visit by means of cough test and a standard 1-hour pad test. Objective success rate after 12 months after primary procedure in RSUI patients was found in 59.3% of patients. In 14 patients with primary SUI improvement after 1 year was found in 71.4% of patients. Although cure rates after MUS are up to 90% there is still place for less invasive treatment option like periurethral injection of bulking agents, especially in patients with previous SUI surgical management.

Indexed as

AgedBiocompatible MaterialsDimethylpolysiloxanesFemaleHumansInjectionsMiddle AgedProstheses and ImplantsTitaniumTreatment OutcomeUrethraUrinary Incontinence, StressBiocompatible MaterialsDimethylpolysiloxanesTitaniumurolastic

Identifiers

PMID26106616
PMCPMC4461699
OpenAlexW2094437967

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.