ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2022
Treatment of stress urinary incontinence with polyacrylamide hydrogel in an office setting: patient perspectives.
Article 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 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Hydrogel-Based Therapies for Female Stress Urinary Incontinence: From Bulking Agents to Regenerative Platforms-A Narrative Review.Current urology reports · 2026Review
- Symptom Relief and Practice Setting Variation in Bulkamid Injections for Stress Urinary Incontinence.Neurourology and urodynamics · 2026Article
- A Nordic perspective on female stress urinary incontinence care: Lessons for shared clinical practice.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2026Review
- Current Treatment of Stress Urinary Incontinence by Bulking Agents and Laser Therapy-An Update.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisThe office setting provides the opportunity for surgeons to perform specific procedures more efficiently than in a day case operating theater. Consequently, health care systems are interested in altering surgical services from a day case operating theater to an office setting. The impact on patient's satisfaction is more challenging to estimate. The bulking procedure is an intervention for urinary stress incontinence. It was originally performed in the day case operating theater under general anesthesia or sedation. Today, the procedure is mostly done under local anesthesia. The aim of this study was to assess patient satisfaction changing from day case operating theater to office setting. Our hypothesis was that patients preferred the office setting.
methodsA prospective cohort study was executed from 15 September 2020 to 1 June 2021. A total of 115 women underwent a bulking procedure in the office setting. A follow-up (phone questionnaire) 3 months post-operatively for quality assurance is mandatory. The office setting experience was assessed concurrently.
resultsA total of 95.6% (110 out of 115) preferred the bulking procedure performed in the office setting. The reasons were: a short waiting time (71 out of 110; 64.5%), less nervousness (47 out of 110; 42.7%), and they felt more secure (49 out of 110; 44.5%). On a visual analog scale (VAS) from 0 to 10, 37.4% (43 out of 115) considered a short waiting time important (VAS 10) and 81.7% (94 out of 115) rated a short waiting time ≥ VAS 5.
conclusionsThe office setting provides a patient-friendly and comfortable place for the bulking procedure and is generally preferred by the patient over the day case operating theater. Important for the preference is the accessibility and minimal waiting time. The office setting is therefore both convenient and efficient for surgeon and patient.
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.