Trial reportInternational urogynecology journal2020
Randomized controlled trial comparing mini-sling with transobturator sling for the treatment of stress urinary incontinence.
Trial report in International urogynecology journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06334848 (Efficacy of Mini Sling Versus Transobturator Tape in Surgical Management of Women With Stress Urinary Incontinence), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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.
Efficacy of Mini Sling Versus Transobturator Tape in Surgical Management of Women With Stress Urinary Incontinence
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Single-incision sling operations for urinary incontinence in women.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- Single-incision mini-slings versus standard synthetic mid-urethral slings for surgical treatment of stress urinary incontinence in women: The SIMS RCT.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2022Trial
- Review
- Comparison of Clinical Efficacy and Urodynamic Changes Using Single-incision Slings (MiniArcGynecology 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisStress urinary incontinence (SUI) is the involuntary loss of urine on effort and is a condition that negatively interferes with various aspects of a woman's life. This study aimed to demonstrate the non-inferiority of the less invasive single-incision mini-sling (SIMS) method in objective and subjective cures in relation to tension-free transobturator tape (TOT) in two analyses, per protocol and intention to treat, and secondarily to evaluate complications and quality of life.
methodsThis study was a randomized controlled trial (RCT). Participants in this study included 105 women with a clinical diagnosis of stress predominant urinary incontinence and urodynamic results demonstrating SUI and absence of detrusor overactivity. Patients were evaluated pre- and postoperatively through anamnesis, physical examination, urinalysis, urine culture and susceptibility testing, simplified pad test, the Urinary Incontinence-Specific Quality of Life Instrument (I-QOL) and Urogenital Distress Inventory Short Form (UDI-6).
resultsRegarding the objective cure, SIMS was non-inferior to TOT (p < 0.05). However, the same was not found for the subjective cure (p > 0.05). There were no differences in the complication rates (p > 0.05). However, in the TOT group, bladder perforation (2.4%), tape exposure (2.4%) and urinary retention occurred, lasting > 7 days (2.4%). In both groups, there was improvement in quality of life after surgery, without significant differences (p > 0.05).
conclusionsThe non-inferiority of SIMS in relation to TOT was only demonstrated in the objective cure. There were no significant differences between groups regarding complications and quality of life.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31784809What 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.