Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32661556›Full record

SynthesisInternational urogynecology journal2021

Treatment for refractory overactive bladder: a systematic review and meta-analysis of sacral neuromodulation and onabotulinumtoxinA.

Qing He, Boya Li, Chi Zhang, Jie Zhang, Deyi Luo, Kunjie Wang

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International urogynecology journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Urologist-perceived barriers and perspectives on the underuse of sacral neuromodulation for overactive bladder in Canada.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2023
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Use of Urodynamics by Gynecologists and Urologists in Brazil.Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia · 2022
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Qing He *Department of Urology, Institute of Urology (Laboratory of Reconstructive Urology), West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 37 Guo Xue Xiang, Chengdu, Sichuan, People's Republic of China.
Boya Li *Department of Urology, Institute of Urology (Laboratory of Reconstructive Urology), West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 37 Guo Xue Xiang, Chengdu, Sichuan, People's Republic of China.
Chi ZhangDepartment of Urology, Institute of Urology (Laboratory of Reconstructive Urology), West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 37 Guo Xue Xiang, Chengdu, Sichuan, People's Republic of China.
Jie ZhangDepartment of Urology, Institute of Urology (Laboratory of Reconstructive Urology), West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 37 Guo Xue Xiang, Chengdu, Sichuan, People's Republic of China.
Deyi LuoDepartment of Urology, Institute of Urology (Laboratory of Reconstructive Urology), West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 37 Guo Xue Xiang, Chengdu, Sichuan, People's Republic of China. luodeyi1985@163.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7009-9398
Kunjie WangDepartment of Urology, Institute of Urology (Laboratory of Reconstructive Urology), West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 37 Guo Xue Xiang, Chengdu, Sichuan, People's Republic of China. wangkj@scu.edu.cn.

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China 81770673National Natural Science Foundation of China 81873601West China Hospital, Sichuan University ZY2017310West China Hospital, Sichuan University ZYGD18011
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introduction and hypothesisThis systematic review and meta-analysis aim to evaluate the outcomes between SNM and BTX in the treatment of refractory OAB.

methodsPubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL were comprehensively searched from their inception to December 2019. Randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials evaluating OAB patients who underwent SNM and BTX were included. Data extraction and quality assessment were conducted by two independent reviewers. The outcomes, side effects, and cost-effectiveness values of both procedures were compared in meta-analysis.

resultsThis review involved six articles (2629 patients). Specifically, three articles were based on the same trial, and the other studies were retrospective cohort studies. No significant difference was found in successful treatment between BTX and SNM at 6 months after procedures [risk ratio (RR) = 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.63-1.39]. BTX exhibited a significantly higher total adverse event rate than SNM through 6 months (RR = 1.55, 95% CI 1.28-1.88). Patients suffered more urinary tract infection (UTI) risk under BTX injection at the early stage (RR = 1.58, 95% CI 1.10-2.25); however, the difference in UTI events was not significant between the two groups (RR = 1.13, 95% CI 1.10-2.25) during the period of 7-12 months postoperatively. Obviously, the short-term cost (1-2 years) of BTX was significantly lower than that of the SNM procedure.

conclusionsBoth treatments were effective; however, because of the high complication rate of BTX, it may not be a better way to treat refractory OAB than SNM, although BTX is more cost-effective for short-term treatment at present.

Indexed as

Botulinum Toxins, Type AElectric Stimulation TherapyUrinary Bladder, OveractiveHumansRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeBotulinum Toxins, Type AOnabotulinumtoxinARefractory overactive bladderSacral NeuromodulationSystematic review and meta-analysis

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.