Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33942152›Full record

ReviewDer Urologe. Ausg. A2021

[Alloplastic material in the treatment of urinary incontinence].

M Grabbert, R M Bauer

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Der Urologe. Ausg. A, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

2 authors.

M GrabbertKlinik für Urologie, Universitätsklinikum Freiburg, Medizinische Fakultät, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg, Hugstetter Str. 55, 79106, Freiburg im Breisgau, Deutschland. markus.grabbert@uniklinik-freiburg.de.
R M BauerKlinik und Poliklinik für Urologie, LMU Klinikum, Campus Großhadern, München, Deutschland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Surgery for urinary incontinence is indicated after failure of conservative treatment with pelvic floor therapy. Different sling systems are the established treatment option for urinary incontinence for female and male patients. Tension-free vaginal tapes represent the standard of care in the surgical treatment of female stress urinary incontinence. In male patients with mild or moderate stress urinary incontinence, fixed repositioning slings or adjustable compressive slings represent minimally invasive alternatives to the artificial urinary sphincter. The use of surgical mesh material has been widely discussed within the last years. The current US Food and Drug Administration warning was focused on the use of transvaginal mesh implants in female patients with pelvic organ prolapse. Within the current debate, surgery for stress urinary incontinence and surgery for pelvic organ prolapse have often not been differentiated. With this ongoing discussion about the use of foreign material in reconstructive surgery, laparoscopic colposuspension might be performed more often in the near future.

Indexed as

Pelvic Organ ProlapseSuburethral SlingsUrinary IncontinenceUrinary Incontinence, StressFemaleHumansMaleSurgical MeshUrologic Surgical ProceduresAdjustable slingsMesh materialPelvic organ prolapsePostoperative complicationsTension-free vaginal tapes

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.