Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28220200›Full record

SynthesisInternational urogynecology journal2017

Intraurethral bulking agents for the management of female stress urinary incontinence: a systematic review.

Zain A Siddiqui, Hamid Abboudi, Ruairidh Crawford, Shahzad Shah

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis 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 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.0field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 64 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Zain A SiddiquiDepartment of Urology, Birmingham City Hospital, Dudley Road, Birmingham, B18 7QH, UK.
Hamid AbboudiDepartment of Urology, Watford General Hospital, Vicarage Road, Watford, WD80 0HB, UK. hamid.abboudi@doctors.org.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4363-3310
Ruairidh CrawfordDepartment of Urology, Watford General Hospital, Vicarage Road, Watford, WD80 0HB, UK.
Shahzad ShahDepartment of Urology, Watford General Hospital, Vicarage Road, Watford, WD80 0HB, UK.
Watford General Hospital · GBBirmingham City Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introduction and hypothesisThe object of this review was to assess the efficacy and safety of urethral bulking agents (UBA), principally Macroplastique and Bulkamid, in the treatment of female stress urinary incontinence (SUI).

methodsMEDLINE® and EMBASE® databases were systematically searched up to June 2016. Year of publication, study type, outcome measures, urodynamics before and after the procedure, number of participants, procedure complications, proportion requiring repeat injections or surgical procedures, frequency of follow-up, and results were analysed.

resultsThe use of Bulkamid and Macroplastique for the treatment of female SUI was described in 26 studies. Studies used modalities including the visual analogue scale, Likert scale, International Consultation on Incontinence Modular Questionnaire (ICIQ), Patient Global Improvement Questionnaire (PGIQ) and Incontinence Impact Questionnaire (IIQ) and showed success rates ranging from 66% to 89.7% at 12 months follow-up. Objective improvements in patient symptoms were measured using urodynamics, 24-h pad tests, cough tests and voiding diaries. Studies showed variable objective success rates ranging from 25.4% to 73.3%. Objective findings for UBAs remain less well documented than those for the midurethral sling procedure.

conclusionsThere are a range of complications associated with UBAs, the most common being urinary tract infection. However, it remains a very well tolerated procedure in the majority of patients. UBAs should be considered as an alternative in patients unsuitable for more invasive procedures and those willing to accept the need for repeat injections. The majority of the literature focuses on subjective improvement measures rather than objective improvement measures. Further randomized controlled trials directly comparing UBAs are required to indicate the most effective agent.

Indexed as

Acrylic ResinsBiocompatible MaterialsDimethylpolysiloxanesFemaleHumansHydrogelsInjectionsTreatment OutcomeUrethraUrinary Incontinence, StressAcrylic ResinsbaysilonBiocompatible MaterialsBulkamidDimethylpolysiloxanesHydrogelsBulkamidIncontinenceMacroplastiqueUrethral bulking agent

Identifiers

PMID28220200
OpenAlexW2590931356

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.