Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35443255›Full record

ArticleFemale pelvic medicine & reconstructive surgery2022

Success of Concomitant Versus Interval Slings for Prevention and Treatment of Bothersome de Novo Stress Urinary Incontinence.

Jocelyn J Fitzgerald, Alex Soriano, Joseph Panza, Tanya P Hoke, Shweta P Desai, Amanda M Artsen, Sarah E Andiman, Danielle D Antosh, Robert E Gutman

Open access · greenAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Female pelvic medicine & reconstructive surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 46% 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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

9 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Jocelyn J FitzgeraldFrom the Department Obstetrics and Gynecology, Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, Georgetown University School of Medicine, Washington, DC.
Alex SorianoDepartment Obstetrics and Gynecology, Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
Joseph PanzaDepartment Obstetrics and Gynecology, Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN.
Tanya P HokeDepartment Obstetrics and Gynecology, Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL.
Shweta P DesaiDepartment Obstetrics and Gynecology, Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, Houston Methodist University, Houston, TX.
Amanda M ArtsenDepartment Obstetrics and Gynecology, Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, Magee-Womens Hospital, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA.
Sarah E AndimanDepartment Obstetrics and Gynecology, Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, Mt. Sinai Icahn School of Medicine, New York, NY.
Danielle D AntoshDepartment Obstetrics and Gynecology, Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, Houston Methodist University, Houston, TX.
Robert E GutmanFrom the Department Obstetrics and Gynecology, Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, Georgetown University School of Medicine, Washington, DC.
Georgetown University · USHouston Methodist · USInstitute for Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery · USUniversity of Alabama at Birmingham · USUniversity of Pennsylvania · USUniversity of Pittsburgh · US

Funding

Building Research Careers in Women's HealthK12HD043441 · NICHD · MAGEE-WOMEN'S RES INST AND FOUNDATION · PI SADOVSKY, YOEL · 2002 to 2023
$10.1M
NICHD NIH HHS K12 HD043441
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite large trials designed to guide management on whether to perform a prophylactic continence procedure at the time of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) repair, it remains unclear if a staged or interval approach confers advantages in treatment of bothersome stress urinary incontinence (SUI) in women without bothersome SUI before their POP repair.

objectiveThe objective of this study was to compare success of concomitant versus interval slings for the prevention/treatment of de novo bothersome SUI after POP repair. STUDY

designThis multicenter retrospective cohort with prospective follow-up enrolled women with minimal or no SUI symptoms who underwent minimally invasive apical surgery for stage 2 or higher POP between 2011 and 2018 and had a concomitant sling placed at the time of POP surgery or an interval sling placed. Prospectively, all patients were administered the Urogenital Distress Inventory Short-Form 6, the Patient Global Impression of Improvement, and questions on reoperation/retreatment and complications.

resultsA total of 120 patients had concomitant slings, and 60 had interval slings. There were no differences in the proportion of patients who had intrinsic sphincter deficiency (22% vs 20%), although the concomitant sling group was more likely to have a positive cough stress test result (30% vs 8%, P = 0.006). The interval sling group was more likely to report "yes" to SUI symptoms on Urogenital Distress Inventory Short-Form 6 (3% vs 30%, P = 0.0006) and during their postoperative visit (0% vs 24%, P < 0.0001). There were no differences in surgical complications.

conclusionsAmong women with minimal or no SUI symptoms undergoing prolapse repair, concomitant slings resulted in lower rates of bothersome SUI compared with similar women undergoing interval sling placement.

Indexed as

Pelvic Organ ProlapseSuburethral SlingsUrinary Incontinence, StressFemaleHumansMaleProspective StudiesRetrospective StudiesTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID35443255
PMCPMC9021539
OpenAlexW3202702232

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.