ReviewInternational urogynecology journal2020
Survey on surgery for stress urinary incontinence in an era mid-urethral slings are being questioned.
Review in International urogynecology journal, 2020. 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, 5 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
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionConcerns about vaginal mesh have reduced the use of mid-urethral slings (MUS) in some countries. In view of their potential withdrawal in Belgium and The Netherlands, we polled urogynaecologists on their practice for treating stress urinary incontinence (SUI) and what their experience is with alternative procedures, and we asked them how their patients perceive the risk and success rates.
methodsA survey among members of the pelvic floor special interest group of the Flemish Society for Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Belgian Association of Urology and Dutch Society of Obstetrics and Gynaecology.
resultsTheir primary procedure of choice is the MUS (99%). Sixty-five per cent performs at least 25 MUS yearly; they report high success (90%; IQR [85-92]) and low adverse outcome rates. Physicians anticipate complications as reported in the literature: 5% (IQR [410]) overactive bladder, 5% (IQR [2-10]) voiding problems, 2% (IQR [15]) exposures, 2% (IQR [1-5]) dyspareunia and 1% (IQR [1-3]) chronic pain. Eighty-five per cent of physicians report their patients express fears about having a MUS though usually they cannot precisely tell why. Reportedly they tell their physicians of concerns about pain (54%), exposure (45%), dyspareunia (25%), voiding problems (15%) or overactive bladder (8%). Only half of respondents had ever performed a colposuspension. The majority of these were older and performed colposuspension via laparotomy. Only six (4%) had performed > 20 colposuspensions yearly.
conclusionDutch and Belgian urogynaecologists estimate success and adverse effect rates of MUS in line with the literature. Their patients most cited worries were fear of chronic pain and exposure. Only half of respondents had ever performed a colposuspension. They were older and performed the procedure via laparotomy.
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.