ArticleWorld journal of urology2021
Urethral bulking agents: a retrospective review of primary versus salvage procedure outcomes.
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 3 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effectiveness and safety of bulking agents versus surgical methods in women with stress urinary incontinence: a systematic review and meta-analysis.International urogynecology journal · 2022Pooled it
- Hydrogel-Based Therapies for Female Stress Urinary Incontinence: From Bulking Agents to Regenerative Platforms-A Narrative Review.Current urology reports · 2026Review
- Can urethral re-bulking improve the outcomes of a prior urethral bulking?Therapeutic advances in urologyArticle
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeUrethral bulking agents (UBA) have traditionally been offered as salvage procedures for recurrent stress urinary incontinence (SUI). We compare the success of UBA in patients that had undergone a previous procedure for SUI (Salvage-UBA) to the SUI surgery naïve (Primary-UBA). We hypothesised a positive effect in both Primary and Salvage-UBA with potentially poorer rates of response in the salvage group.
methodsRetrospective case series of patients having their first UBA (2010-2018). Primary outcome was to assess any difference in patient reported success between groups. Patient-reported improvement was assessed on a 4-point scale: 'cured, improved, no change, worse' and treatment 'success' defined as 'cured' or 'improved'. A multivariate analysis, adjusting for plausible differences between groups, was undertaken in IBM SPSS Statistics (2016).
results135 Primary-UBA and 38 Salvage-UBA were performed. Complete follow-up was obtained for 114 patients (66%): 86 Primary and 28 Salvage. Median follow-up time: 33 months. In 2012, 47% (8/17) of all UBA were Salvage-UBA, whilst in 2018, the majority were Primary-UBA (92%, 46/50). Success was not significantly different between Salvage-UBA 75% (21/28) versus Primary-UBA 67% (58/86) (Wald χ
conclusionThe number of women opting for UBA has increased substantially. No significant differences were noted for success with Salvage-UBA compared to Primary-UBA.
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.