SynthesisClinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil)2016
The efficacy and safety of urethral injection therapy for urinary incontinence in women: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- In vivo biocompatibility and long-term durability of nanofibrillated cellulose as a urethral bulking agent in rats and Beagle dogs.PloS one · 2025Article
- Regenerative potential of human dental pulp stem cells in the treatment of stress urinary incontinence: In vitro and in vivo study.Cell proliferation · 2019Article
- The Novel and Minimally Invasive Treatment Modalities for Female Pelvic Floor Muscle Dysfunction; Beyond the TraditionalBalkan medical journal · 2018Review
- The female continence mechanism measured by high resolution manometry: Urethral bulking versus midurethral sling.Neurourology and urodynamics · 2018Article
- Cell Therapy Clinical Trials for Stress Urinary Incontinence: Current Status and Perspectives.International journal of medical sciences · 2018Review
- Periurethral bulking agents for female stress urinary incontinence in Canada.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2017Review
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of different bulking agents for treating urinary incontinence in women, a systematic review including only randomized controlled trials was performed. The subjects were women with urinary incontinence. The primary outcomes were clinical and urodynamic parameters. The results were presented as a weighted mean difference for non-continuous variables and as relative risk for continuous variables, both with 95% confidence intervals. Initially, 942 studies were identified. However, only fourteen eligible trials fulfilled the prerequisites. Altogether, the review included 1814 patients in trials of eight different types of bulking agents, and all studies were described and analyzed. The measured outcomes were evaluated using a large variety of instruments. The most common complications of the bulking agents were urinary retention and urinary tract infection. Additionally, there were certain major complications, such as one case of death after use of autologous fat. However, the lack of adequate studies, the heterogeneous populations studied, the wide variety of materials used and the lack of long-term follow-up limit guidance of practice. To determine which substance is the most suitable, there is a need for more randomized clinical trials that compare existing bulking agents based on standardized clinical outcomes.
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.