ReviewInternational urology and nephrology2016
The treatment of anterior vaginal wall prolapsed by repair with mesh versus colporrhaphy.
Review in International urology and nephrology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- How useful is kidney biopsy for the management of glomerulopathies in the elderly?Journal of nephrology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare patient outcomes of mesh repair and colporrhaphy for the treatment of anterior vaginal wall prolapse (AVP). MATERIALS AND
methodsWe searched PubMed(®), Embase(®), and Cochrane Library databases to identify the included studies. The outcome measures included anatomical success, patient satisfaction, patient sexual function, perioperative data, and complications. Statistical analyses were performed using Cochrane Collaboration Review Manager software (RevMan 5.1.4).
resultsThe study inclusion criteria were met by 11 articles involving 1455 patients. Synthesized data indicated that mesh surgery was more complex than colporrhaphy with regard to perioperative condition [mean difference (MD) 0.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.07-0.49, p = 0.010]. There were no significant differences for the following complications: urinary retention [relative risk (RR) 1.12, 95% CI 0.65-1.94, p = 0.68], urinary incontinence (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.63-1.63, p = 0.96), voiding difficulty (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.69-1.80, p = 0.66), dyspareunia (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.87-1.67, p = 0.26), urinary tract infection (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.74-1.78, p = 0.53), and vaginal bulge (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.93-1.25, p = 0.32). There were instances of more serious complications in group 1, i.e., the mesh group. However, AVP cure rate was significantly higher in the mesh group (RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.34-1.55, p < 0.00001). The cure rate was not significantly dependent on patient satisfaction (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.96-1.26, p = 0.16) or postoperative sexual function (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.90-1.11, p = 0.71).
conclusionsSurgical repair with the mesh procedure appears to be a better choice for the treatment of anterior vaginal wall prolapse.
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.