ArticleFemale pelvic medicine & reconstructive surgery2021
Assessing the Performance of the De Novo Postoperative Stress Urinary Incontinence Calculator.
Article in Female pelvic medicine & reconstructive surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- De-Novo Stress Urinary Incontinence After Apical Prolapse Surgery: Potential Link with the Zone of Critical Elasticity.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Incidence of de novo stress urinary incontinence following minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy.International urogynecology journal · 2023Article
- Long-term Urinary Outcomes After Transvaginal Uterovaginal Prolapse Repair With and Without Concomitant Midurethral Slings.Female pelvic medicine & reconstructive surgery · 2022Article
- Balancing the possibility of needing a future incontinence procedure versus a future urethral sling revision surgery: a tradeoff analysis for continent women undergoing pelvic organ prolapse surgery.International urogynecology journal · 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
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of the study was to determine the performance of a previously published stress urinary incontinence (SUI) risk calculator in women undergoing minimally invasive or transvaginal apical suspensions.
methodsUsing a database of stress-continent women who underwent minimally invasive or transvaginal apical suspensions, we calculated 2 prediction risks for development of SUI within 12 months based on inclusion of a "prophylactic" midurethral sling at the time of prolapse surgery. Observed subjective and objective continence status was abstracted from medical records. Regression models were created for the outcome of de novo SUI to generate receiver operating curves. Concordance (c) indices were estimated for the overall and procedure subgroups to determine the calculator's ability to discriminate between SUI outcomes.
resultsAnalyses included 502 women. De novo SUI was observed in 23.5% of women. The mean ± SD calculated risk of de novo SUI if a sling was performed was 18.9% ± 13.9 at 12 months compared with 36.4% ± 8.3 without sling. The calculator's discriminative ability for those with a planned sling was moderate (c-index = 0.55, P = 0.037). The calculator failed to discriminate continence outcomes when a sling was not planned in the overall group (c-index = 0.50, P = 0.799) and individual apical procedures.
conclusionsThe SUI risk calculator is significantly limited in its ability to predict de novo SUI in our population of women planning minimally invasive apical suspensions. Refinements to the calculator model are needed to improve its utility in clinical practice.
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.