Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27738738›Full record

ReviewInternational urogynecology journal2017

Carcinogenic potential of polypropylene mid-urethral slings: what do we know so far?

Eugene Adel, Robert Shapiro, Stanley Zaslau

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in International urogynecology journal, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Eugene AdelDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, West Virginia University School of Medicine, PO Box 9186, Morgantown, WV, 26506, USA.
Robert ShapiroDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, West Virginia University School of Medicine, PO Box 9186, Morgantown, WV, 26506, USA. rshapiro@hsc.wvu.edu.
Stanley ZaslauDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, West Virginia University School of Medicine, PO Box 9186, Morgantown, WV, 26506, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introduction and hypothesisPolypropylene (PP) mesh has come under increased scrutiny owing to previous FDA safety communications regarding the risks of mesh in trans-vaginal surgery and ensuing class action litigation for post-operative complications. Additional concerns have been raised regarding a possible link between implanted PP mesh and the long-term development of malignancy. Until recently, no research was specifically committed to the exploration of such a link. Our objective was to provide an overview of the recent literature focusing on any association between the use of PP mesh for midurethral sling procedures and the development of malignancy.

methodsMultiple online research databases were searched for information related to any possible carcinogenic potential of PP mesh.

resultsThere was no increased incidence in the development of malignancy after midurethral sling procedures using PP mesh in any of the studies.

conclusionGiven the scarcity of evidence suggesting otherwise, the likelihood of PP mesh causing malignancy is exceptionally low. However, with few studies and an unknown latency period between exposure and diagnosis, more observational data would prove useful to exclude causality.

Indexed as

CarcinogenesisFemaleHumansNeoplasmsPolypropylenesSuburethral SlingsSurgical MeshVaginaPolypropylenesCarcinogenesisForeign bodyMeshPolypropyleneSlingStress incontinence

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.