ArticleTherapeutic advances in urology
Effectiveness of surgical management with an adjustable sling
Article in Therapeutic advances in urology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- 'Efficacy and safety outcomes after slings or artificial urinary sphincter implantation for non-neurogenic male stress urinary incontinence: a systematic review' for more clarity.Frontiers in urology · 2026Pooled it
- Artificial Urinary Sphincter Is Better Than Slings for Moderate Male Stress Urinary Incontinence With Acceptable Complication Rate: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Pooled it
- Male sling versus artificial urinary sphincter for the treatment of incontinence after prostate surgery: a systematic review with meta-analysis.Translational andrology and urology · 2024Article
- Peri-operative outcomes between primary and replacement artificial urinary sphincter surgery: An ACS-NSQIP analysis.Turkish journal of urology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe purpose of this study was to determine the effectiveness of an adjustable sling compared with an artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) in patients with severe urinary incontinence (SUI) postprostatectomy (PP).
methodsThis review was carried out following the Cochrane Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) declaration. We searched Medline, Embase, LILACS, and CENTRAL databases. Studies with patients older than 18 years of age with SUI PP who underwent sling or AUS intervention and had been monitored for longer than 12 months were included.
resultsSeven studies were included, yielding a sample size of 420. Pads were reportedly dry or improved in 70% of the sling group compared with 74% in the AUS group. The Incontinence Impact Questionnaire, Short Form (IIQ-7) was the most frequently used scale and showed improvement, with a score of 82.8% in the AUS group compared with 86.1% in the sling group. When comparing interventions with nonintervention, relative risks (RRs) of 35.37 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 7.17-174.35) and 45.14 (95% CI: 11.09-183.70) were found for the adjustable sling and AUS, respectively, which were statistically significant. No significant differences were found when AUS
conclusionsBoth interventions can reduce incontinence and improve the quality of life of patients with SUI PP. The published literature is substantially limited as no randomized clinical trials are available, no consensus has been reached regarding the definition of severity of incontinence, and considerable heterogeneity exists across the outcome variables measured.
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.