Trial reportObstetrics and gynecology2020
Two Intraoperative Techniques for Midurethral Sling Tensioning: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
Trial report in Obstetrics and gynecology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02480231 (Mid-Urethral Sling Tensioning Trial), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
Mid-Urethral Sling Tensioning Trial
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Babcock versus Scissor Tensioning for Retropubic Mid-Urethral Slings: Comparing Two Intra-Operative Techniques Through 5 Years of Follow-Up.International urogynecology journal · 2025Trial
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate whether the use of a Mayo Scissor as a suburethral spacer compared with a Babcock clamp holding a loop of tape under the urethra results in different rates of abnormal bladder outcomes 12 months after retropubic midurethral sling surgery.
methodsThe MUST (Mid-Urethral Sling Tensioning) trial was a block-randomized, double-blind, multicenter clinical trial that allocated women to have their retropubic midurethral slings tensioned by Scissor or Babcock technique. The primary outcome (abnormal bladder) was a composite of persistent stress urinary incontinence (SUI), overactive bladder, and urinary retention. Secondary outcomes included outcomes of the composite, postoperative catheterization, incontinence-related questionnaires, repeat incontinence treatment, and uroflowmetry. Sample size of 159 in each arm (N=318) was planned for a superiority trial, hypothesizing a 10% difference in primary outcome.
resultsFrom September 2015 to December 2017, 506 women were screened and 318 were randomized. Baseline characteristics were similar in each arm. At 12 months, 253 (79.6%) women provided information on primary outcome: 40 of 128 (31.3%) patients with midurethral slings tensioned by Scissor experienced abnormal bladder, compared with 23 of 125 (18.4%) of those with midurethral slings tensioned by Babcock (P=.018, relative difference 12.9%). Secondary analyses favored Babcock for median duration of catheterization and the proportions of women experiencing urinary retention requiring sling lysis. Uroflowmetry parameters suggest the Scissor technique is more restrictive. Rates of mesh erosion were lower for the Scissor arm. No differences occurred in proportions of women experiencing patient reported persistent SUI after surgery.
conclusionAbnormal bladder outcomes were 12.9% less frequent for women with midurethral slings tensioned by Babcock. Both techniques provided a comparable patient reported cure for SUI at 12 months. Women with midurethral slings tensioned by Scissors experienced more intervention for obstruction, whereas those with midurethral slings tensioned by Babcock experienced higher rates of mesh erosion. This information about how the postoperative courses differ allows surgeons to better counsel patients preoperatively or tailor their choice of technique. CLINICAL
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02480231. FUNDING SOURCE: Boston Scientific.
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.