ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2017
Are suburethral slings less successful in the elderly?
Article in International urogynecology journal, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Retropubic slings are more efficient than transobturator at 10-year follow-up: a Swedish register-based study.International urogynecology journal · 2023Article
- Outcomes and failure risks in mid-urethral sling insertion in elderly and old age with urodynamic stress incontinence.International urogynecology journal · 2020Article
- Five-year Follow-up of Transobturator Sling: 152 Cases with the Same Surgeon.Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia · 2018Observational
- Observational
- Choosing the right sling for your patient.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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisWe aimed to evaluate the success of suburethral slings in women ≥70 years of age.
methodsThis was a retrospective cohort study of women who underwent suburethral sling placement. Subjects were separated into three groups: ≤50 years of age (group 1), 51 to 69 years of age (group 2), and ≥70 years of age (group 3). The primary aim was to evaluate success as defined by ≥ improved on a validated patient improvement satisfaction score and a negative postoperative standardized stress test.
resultsThere were 1,464 subjects. Mean age was 44.51 ± 4.25 (n = 296) for group 1, 60.5 ± 5.28 (n = 680) for group 2, and 77.68 ± 5.41 (n = 488) for group 3. The median follow-up was 26 (6-498) weeks, 45 (6-498) weeks, and 42 (6-543) weeks, for groups 1, 2, and 3 respectively. Multiple logistic regression analysis demonstrated no difference in sling success according to age stratification. Lower success was associated with having had a previous sling (adjusted OR 0.25, 95 % CI 0.12-0.5), having detrusor overactivity (adjusted OR 0.44, 95 % CI 0.28-0.69), and having a history of urge urinary incontinence (UUI) for ≥ 4 years (adjusted OR 0.54, 95 % CI 0.31-0.95).
conclusionsThere is no difference in sling success between the elderly and younger populations. However, those with previous sling surgery or a long standing history of UUI may be at a higher risk of failure.
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.