Observational studyInternational urogynecology journal2019
An Internet-based survey to evaluate the comfort and need for further pubovaginal sling training.
Observational study in International urogynecology journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Google searches for stress urinary incontinence treatment options: a worldwide trend analysis in the synthetic mesh controversy era.World journal of urology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisThe pubovaginal sling (PVS) dates to the 1940s as an efficacious surgical treatment for stress urinary incontinence (SUI). Recently, it has been replaced by the midurethral sling (MUS). Since 2008, international regulatory agencies increased regulation and issued warnings on vaginal mesh for repair of pelvic organ prolapse (POP), which has led to increased scrutiny of the MUS. Thus, the need for surgical comfort with PVS is resurfacing. We sought to evaluate the surgical practice patterns among international urogynecologists for the treatment of SUI and identify whether a need and interest for more training exists.
methodsWe developed a short, Internet-based survey for members of the International Urogynecological Association (IUGA). Descriptive analyses, binomial and multivariate logistic regressions were calculated to determine significant associations.
resultsAmong 556 members who responded to the survey, 72% did not offer PVS in practice. Among those who did, there was as significant relationship between offering PVS and practicing in the United States, board-certification in urogynecology, PVS exposure in training, increasing number of PVS performed during training, and comfort with PVS. Members interested in further PVS training were younger, less comfortable with PVS, performed fewer PVS, or had no exposure in training.
conclusionMost IUGA members do not offer PVS in clinical practice. As would be expected, members who performed more PVS in training and were more comfortable with PVS were likely to offer it to patients. Our results highlight a learning gap, especially among younger providers who are not comfortable with PVS and desire further training in this procedure.
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.