Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33951222›Full record

SynthesisNeurourology and urodynamics2021

Animal experimental research assessing urogynecologic surgical mesh implants: Outcome measures describing the host response, a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Kim W J Verhorstert, Aksel N Gudde, Brita S Kortz, Jacqueline Limpens, Jan-Paul W R Roovers, Carlijn R Hooijmans, Zeliha Guler

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Neurourology and urodynamics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Chapter 4.5: New Proposed Treatments for Pelvic Organ Prolapse.International urogynecology journal · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Kim W J VerhorstertDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Amsterdam Reproduction and Development, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-9583-6657
Aksel N GuddeDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Amsterdam Reproduction and Development, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Brita S KortzDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Amsterdam Reproduction and Development, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Jacqueline LimpensMedical Library, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Jan-Paul W R RooversDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Amsterdam Reproduction and Development, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Carlijn R HooijmansDepartment for Health Evidence unit SYRCLE, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Zeliha GulerDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Amsterdam Reproduction and Development, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Amsterdam Neuroscience · NLAmsterdam University Medical Centers · NLRadboud University Nijmegen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimBefore the introduction of new biomaterials for prolapse surgery, animal studies on the host response are required. Unfortunately, large variation in study design hampers obtaining an overview of the safety and efficacy, and translation to clinical practice. Our aim is to systematically review the literature on all outcome measures describing the host response in animal studies assessing the biocompatibility of urogynecologic surgical mesh implants for prolapse surgery. Furthermore, by meta-analysis, we aim to assess the effect of implantation and compare this to control animals receiving sham surgery or native tissue repair.

methodsWe performed a systematic search from inception to August 2020. Since this is an explorative study we included original, controlled, and noncontrolled animal studies describing any host response to the implant. Quantitative outcome measures reported ≥10 times in ≥2 articles were eligible for meta-analysis.

resultsFifty articles were included in the qualitative synthesis and 36 articles were eligible for meta-analysis. In total, 154 outcome measures were defined and classified into (1) histomorphology, (2) biomechanics and, (3) macroscopic morphology. Animals with vaginal implants demonstrated significantly increased M1 and M2 macrophages, MMP-2, neovascularization, TNF-α, and stiffness, and lower vaginal contractility compared to control animals.

conclusionThe host response significantly differs in animals after vaginal mesh implantation compared to control animals, both pro- and anti-inflammatory. However, we observed a paucity in the uniformity of reported outcomes. For future animal studies, we propose the development of a core outcome set, which ideally predicts the host response in women.

Indexed as

Surgical MeshAnimalsFemaleGynecologic Surgical ProceduresHumansOutcome Assessment, Health CarePelvic Organ ProlapseVaginabiomaterialsforeign-body reactionin vivopelvic floorpelvic organ prolapse

Identifiers

PMID33951222
PMCPMC8359983
OpenAlexW3158981893

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.