ArticleWorld journal of urology2021
Is electronic follow-up using a mobile phone application after mid-urethral sling placement feasible and efficient?
Article in World journal of urology, 2021. 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.
- Telemedicine in Surgical Care in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Scoping Review.World journal of surgery · 2022Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo assess and report the feasibility and efficacy of electronic follow-up in patients after mid-urethral sling (MUS) operation.
methodsAll 235 patients after MUS operation for stress urinary incontinence (SUI) were divided into the WeChat follow-up (WFU) and the outpatient follow-up (OFU) groups. Patients completed electronic or paper-validated questionnaires. Demographic and clinical characteristics, questionnaire scores, loss to follow-up rate, patient satisfaction, and complications were compared and analyzed.
resultsOverall, 189 patients completed the follow-up assessment. The OFU group showed a higher rate of loss to follow-up (25.6% vs. 13.2%, p = 0.016). The mean preoperative International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Urinary Incontinence Short Form (ICIQ-UI SF) scores were 18.22 ± 2.64 and 18.06 ± 2.75 in the WFU and OFU groups, respectively (p = 0.672). The mean postoperative ICIQ-UI SF scores were 3.70 ± 1.65 and 3.86 ± 1.48, respectively (p = 0.489). There were 84.8% of WFU patients and 80% of OFU patients reported "very much better" or "much better" on the Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) scale (p = 0.381). Patient satisfaction rate was higher in the WFU group than in the OFU group (87.9% vs. 74.4%, p = 0.018). Seventeen patients reported postoperative complications (9 and 8 patients in the WFU and OFU groups, respectively, p = 0.961).
conclusionsIt appears that electronic follow-up using a mobile phone application is feasible and efficient for patients after MUS operation, and may be associated with improved rates of satisfaction and retention.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32430570What 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.