ReviewArab journal of urology2013
The fate of synthetic mid-urethral slings in 2013: A turning point.
Review in Arab journal of urology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSince the introduction of the first retropubic tension-free synthetic sling to treat stress urinary incontinence (SUI), newer approaches, different techniques and new devices have been created. Transobturator and single-incision sling (SIS) techniquespara-were developed with the goal of diminishing the rate of complications andspeeding the recovery phase.
methodsFor this review we searched Medline for relevant papers, with an emphasis on meta-analysis and randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Specially selected reports were identified to address both 'index patients' (defined as those with genuine SUI and no previous anti-incontinence procedure or other genitourinary sign or symptom that might affect her SUI) and, briefly, non-index patients. Two authors independently reviewed papers for eligibility.
resultsLevel 1 evidence from a Cochrane review and two meta-analyses indicated that subjective outcomes with the mid-urethral sling (MUS) were similar to those from colposuspension. However, the MUS was better than colposuspension when assessing objective outcomes (Level 1). MUS are equally effective as autologous pubovaginal slings (Level1). Two meta-analyses suggest that retropubic MUS (RMUS) might be better than transobturator MUS when assessing objective outcomes. Five more recent RCTs with longer term outcomes showed high success rates and only one reported a significant advantage for the RMUS in women with intrinsic sphincteric deficiency. One meta-analysis addressing the SIS showed inferior outcomes to the MUS (Level 1). New and improved SIS techniques have been used, but long-term outcomes are limited and results are still controversial when compared to the MUS.
conclusionMUS are still the standard to treat the index patient as previously stated by the American and European Associations of Urology. Currently data are lacking to define which sling and what approach works best. Complications are significantly different between sling types and are dependent on technique.
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.