ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2021
Remeex
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison Study between Artificial Urinary Sphincter and Adjustable Male Sling: A Propensity-Score-Matched Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- A narrative review on surgical treatment options for male stress urinary incontinence.Translational andrology and urology · 2023Review
- Surgical Management of Male Stress Incontinence: Techniques, Indications, and Pearls for Success.Research and reports in urology · 2023Review
- Efficacy and Complications of the Re-Adjustable Male Sling System for Stress Urinary Incontinence after Radical Prostatectomy.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWhen conservative management fails, patients with stress urinary incontinence (SUI) are considered for surgical treatment. Simpler, more economical and less invasive surgical techniques, such as the Remeex
objectivesTo analyze the objective effectiveness of the Remeex MATERIALS AND
methodsProspective observational study between July 2015 and May 2020. Group A (
resultsMean age 69.76 years, mean follow-up 33.52 months. Objective effectiveness was observed in 89.36% of patients with incontinence. The effectiveness was 85.71% in GA, 90.91% in GB and 88.89% in GC. There were no significant differences among groups (
conclusionsRemeex
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.