ReviewTranslational andrology and urology2017
Midurethral slings in the mesh litigation era.
Review in Translational andrology and urology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- COInternational urogynecology journal · 2022Trial
- Mesh Exposure After Mid-urethral Slings. A National Observational Study of 9 Years of Practice in Denmark.International urogynecology journal · 2026Observational
- Distinct microbiome profiles on vaginally inserted polypropylene midurethral mesh slings compared to vaginal, urinary, and skin microbiomes.Applied and environmental microbiology · 2025Article
- Differentiation of patient-specific void urine-derived human induced pluripotent stem cells to fibroblasts and skeletal muscle myocytes.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Impact of a mid-urethral synthetic mesh sling on long-term risk of systemic conditions in women with stress urinary incontinence: a national cohort study.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2022Article
- Complications and re-operations after tension-free vaginal tape operation in women with stress urinary incontinence.International urogynecology journal · 2021Article
- Survey on surgery for stress urinary incontinence in an era mid-urethral slings are being questioned.International urogynecology journal · 2020Review
- The role of urodynamics in females with lower urinary tract symptoms.Arab journal of urology · 2019Review
- Review
- Single-Incision Mini-Sling for the Treatment of Female Stress Urinary Incontinence: Is it Actually Inferior to Transobturator Vaginal Tape and Tension-Free Vaginal Tape?Gynecology and minimally invasive therapyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Stress urinary incontinence (SUI) has always been a major health issue for women. With the progression of technology and surgical techniques, mid urethral slings (MUS) used in both transvaginal and transobturator routes have become the gold standard in the treatment of SUI. There is ample short to mid-term data confirming the efficacy and safety in using MUS in treating SUI in women. However, long-term data supporting the use of MUS in women to treat SUI is scarce. There has been much controversy surrounding the US Food and Drug Administrations' (FDA) public notification of potential complications surrounding the use of transvaginal mesh, which has been magnified and generalised by the media; but despite this there has still been substantial growth and uptake of MUS for treating SUI. In this review, we aim to explore some of the issues with MUS, the factors around litigation with mesh use, the impact of FDA's notification on the uptake of MUS and ultimately, the results and efficacy of MUS for the treatment of SUI.
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.