SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2017
Bladder neck needle suspension for urinary incontinence in women.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 75 citations in OpenAlex.
- Outcomes of concomitant midurethral sling and anterior colporrhaphy in managing stress urinary incontinence associated with cystocele: a systematic review and single-arm analysis.World journal of urology · 2025Pooled it
- Conservative interventions for treating urinary incontinence in women: an Overview of Cochrane systematic reviews.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022Pooled it
- Traditional suburethral sling operations for urinary incontinence in women.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020Pooled it
- Laparoscopic colposuspension for urinary incontinence in women.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019Pooled it
- Interventions for treating recurrent stress urinary incontinence after failed minimally invasive synthetic midurethral tape surgery in women.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Electrical stimulation with non-implanted devices for stress urinary incontinence in women.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Research trends of acupuncture therapy on stress urinary incontinence from 1992 to 2022: A bibliometric analysis.Heliyon · 2023Review
- Revisiting current treatment options for stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse: a contemporary literature review.Research and reports in urology · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBladder neck needle suspension is an operation traditionally used for moderate or severe stress urinary incontinence in women. About a third of adult women experience some urinary incontinence, and about a third of these have moderate or severe symptoms. Stress urinary incontinence (SUI) imposes significant health and economic burdens on society and the women affected.
objectivesTo determine the effects of needle suspension on stress or mixed urinary incontinence in comparison with other management options. SEARCH
methodsWe searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE in process, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP and handsearching of journals and conference proceedings (searched 12 November 2014), and the reference lists of relevant articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised trials that included needle suspension for the treatment of urinary incontinence. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two authors assessed trials and extracted data independently. Two trial investigators provided additional information. MAIN
resultsWe identified 10 trials, which included 375 women having six different types of needle suspension procedures and 489 who received comparison interventions. Needle suspensions were more likely to fail than open abdominal retropubic suspension. There was a higher subjective failure rate after the first year (91/313 (29%) failed versus 47/297 (16%) failed after open abdominal retropubic suspension). The risk ratio (RR) was 2.00 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.47 to 2.72), although the difference in peri-operative complications was not significant (17/75 (23%) versus 12/77 (16%); RR 1.44, 95% CI 0.73 to 2.83). There were no significant differences for the other outcome measures. This effect was seen in both women with primary incontinence and women with recurrent incontinence after failed primary operations. Needle suspensions may be as effective as anterior vaginal repair (50/156 (32%) failed after needle suspension versus 64/181 (35%) after anterior repair; RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.16), but there was little information about morbidity. Data for comparison with suburethral slings were inconclusive because they came from a small and atypical population.No trials compared needle suspensions with conservative management, peri-urethral injections, or sham or laparoscopic surgery. AUTHORS'
conclusionsBladder neck needle suspension surgery is probably not as good as open abdominal retropubic suspension for the treatment of primary and secondary urodynamic stress incontinence because the cure rates were lower in the trials reviewed. However, the reliability of the evidence was limited by poor quality and small trials. There was not enough information to comment on comparisons with suburethral sling operations. Although cure rates were similar after needle suspension compared with after anterior vaginal repair, the data were insufficient to be reliable and inadequate to compare morbidity. A Brief Economic Commentary (BEC) identified no cost-effectiveness studies comparing bladder neck needle suspension with other surgeries.
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.