ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2017
Mesh in POP surgery should be based on the risk of the procedure, not the risk of recurrence.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Influence of Vaginal Native Tissue Repair (VNTR) on Various Aspects of Quality of Life in Women with Symptomatic Pelvic Organ Prolapse-A Prospective Cohort Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2020Article
- The Influence of Vaginal Native Tissues Pelvic Floor Reconstructive Surgery in Patients with Symptomatic Pelvic Organ Prolapse on Preexisting Storage Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms (LUTS).Journal of clinical medicine · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The still unfolding story of mesh use in surgery for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) offers insights into the factors that influence how we interpret evidence in assessing new technology. Our adoption of mesh in prolapse surgery was influenced by a paradigm shift from treating to preventing recurrent prolapse. This shift is largely unsupported by data and fails to account for the added risk associated with mesh use. This commentary explores unconscious factors that influence our interpretation of innovation and proposes a new approach to evaluating new surgical technologies that balances benefit and risk. Counseling patients about treatments using the benefit-risk approach offers a more balanced perspective. Using a formal benefit-risk assessment in the scientific evaluation of treatments will also provide a more balanced approach that supports the scientific process and patients who undergo treatment.
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.