SynthesisInternational urogynecology journal2022
Effectiveness and safety of bulking agents versus surgical methods in women with stress urinary incontinence: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in International urogynecology journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 32 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
- Human Amniotic Fluid Stem Cell-mediated Biomechanical Restoration of Urinary Continence in Rats.Tissue engineering and regenerative medicine · 2026Article
- Attitudes towards stress urinary incontinence surgery in Ireland: navigating the pause on mid-urethral sling use.Irish journal of medical science · 2025Article
- Innovations in Stress Urinary Incontinence: A Narrative Review.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Review
- Effectiveness and Safety Profile of Urethral Bulking with BulkamidInternational urogynecology journal · 2025Article
- Management of Stress Urinary Incontinence by Obstetricians and Gynecologists in Jordan: A Nationwide Survey Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Examining the Role of Frailty on Treatment Patterns and Complications Among Older Women Undergoing Procedure-Based Treatment for Urinary Incontinence.The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences · 2024Article
- 2024 Canadian Urological Association guideline: Female stress urinary incontinence.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2024Article
- Current Treatment of Stress Urinary Incontinence by Bulking Agents and Laser Therapy-An Update.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Clinical Outcomes of Mid-Urethral Sling (MUS) Procedures for the Treatment of Female Urinary Incontinence: A Multicenter Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Vaginal Laser Therapy for Female Stress Urinary Incontinence: New Solutions for a Well-Known Issue-A Concise Review.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2022Review
- Urethral Bulking in the Treatment of Stress and Mixed Female Urinary Incontinence: Results from a Multicenter Cohort and Predictors of Clinical Outcomes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Stem-cell therapy in stress urinary incontinence: A review.Tzu chi medical journalReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisThe objective was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of bulking agents compared with surgical methods for female stress urinary incontinence.
methodsInclusion and exclusion criteria: women with stress urinary incontinence. Bulking agents versus any surgical treatment as a comparison. Patients with other types of incontinence and treatment were excluded. Electronic databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Library) were searched from 2000 until 2021 to identify articles evaluating the effectiveness and safety of urethral bulking agents versus surgical methods. Risk-of-bias assessment tools recommended by the Cochrane Society were used to evaluate the risk of bias in the studies included.
resultsSix studies were included in the quantitative synthesis for a total of 710 patients. Our systematic review and meta-analysis showed that bulking agents are less effective than surgical procedures according to subjective improvement after treatment (RR = 0.70, 95% CI: 0.53 to 0.92, p = 0.01). There was no statistically significant difference between these two methods with regard to complications after the intervention (RR = 1.30, 95% CI: 0.30 to 5.66, p = 0.73).
conclusionThe main limitation of this systematic review and meta-analysis was the absence of a common objective outcome measure to evaluate effectiveness. However, it shows that bulking agents are less effective than surgical procedures in subjective improvement. Safety analysis showed no significant difference between these methods. Hence, we believe that the first and final surgery is considered to be the best.
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.