Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29532124›Full record

ReviewInternational urogynecology journal2018

The use of synthetic mesh for vaginal prolapse in the UK: a review of cases submitted to the British Society of Urogynaecology database.

Ruben D Trochez, Steven Lane, Jonathan Duckett, BSUG

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in International urogynecology journal, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
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.

Ruben D TrochezLiverpool Women's Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Crown Street, Liverpool, L8 7SS, UK. ruben.trochez@nhs.net.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0387-4796
Steven LaneDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Jonathan DuckettMedway NHS Foundation Trust, Gillingham, UK.
BSUG

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introduction and hypothesisThe use of mesh for vaginal prolapse gained popularity during the 1990s. More recently, concerns have been raised regarding the safety of mesh procedures. Mesh can be inserted vaginally, laparoscopically or via an open abdominal route, but there are few data comparing the outcomes. Most previous published data relate to small numbers of procedures.

methodsThis was a review of data submitted to the British Society of Urogynaecology (BSUG) database of all cases reporting the use of mesh placed vaginally or abdominally (open or laparoscopic) between January 2006 and December 2016. The primary outcome was based on the reported patient global impression of improvement (PGI-I).

resultsA total of 6,709 cases of mesh prolapse repair were entered during the study period. Women in the laparoscopic group had a lower BMI and were younger. Significantly more patients in the open group (96.4%) described themselves as very much better or much better compared with the laparoscopic group (91%) and the vaginal mesh group (90.7%; p < 0.001). Only 0.5% of patients reported that they were worse or very much worse.

conclusionsThis dataset suggests that the effectiveness of mesh repair might be good regardless of the route of insertion. The improvement in PGI-I seems to be greatest with open sacrocolpopexy.

Indexed as

Surgical MeshFemaleGynecologic Surgical ProceduresHumansTreatment OutcomeUnited KingdomUterine ProlapseVaginaVaginal meshVaginal prolapse

Identifiers

PMID29532124

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.