Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35774194›Full record

ReviewAdvances in urology2022

Comparison of Different Invasive Devices for the Treatment of Urinary Incontinence after Radical Prostatectomy.

Stefano Salciccia, Pietro Viscuso, Giulio Bevilacqua, Antonio Tufano, Paolo Casale, Ettore De Berardinis, Giovanni Battista Di Pierro, Susanna Cattarino, Alessandro Gentilucci, Francesca Lourdes Lia and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Advances in urology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 27% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
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

15 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Stefano SalcicciaDepartment of Maternal-Infant and Urologic Sciences, "Sapienza" University of Rome, Policlinico Umberto I Hospital, Rome, Italy.
Pietro ViscusoDepartment of Maternal-Infant and Urologic Sciences, "Sapienza" University of Rome, Policlinico Umberto I Hospital, Rome, Italy.
Giulio BevilacquaDepartment of Maternal-Infant and Urologic Sciences, "Sapienza" University of Rome, Policlinico Umberto I Hospital, Rome, Italy.
Antonio TufanoDepartment of Maternal-Infant and Urologic Sciences, "Sapienza" University of Rome, Policlinico Umberto I Hospital, Rome, Italy.
Paolo CasaleDepartment of Urology, Humanitas, Milan, Italy.
Ettore De BerardinisDepartment of Maternal-Infant and Urologic Sciences, "Sapienza" University of Rome, Policlinico Umberto I Hospital, Rome, Italy.
Giovanni Battista Di PierroDepartment of Maternal-Infant and Urologic Sciences, "Sapienza" University of Rome, Policlinico Umberto I Hospital, Rome, Italy.
Susanna CattarinoDepartment of Maternal-Infant and Urologic Sciences, "Sapienza" University of Rome, Policlinico Umberto I Hospital, Rome, Italy.
Alessandro GentilucciDepartment of Maternal-Infant and Urologic Sciences, "Sapienza" University of Rome, Policlinico Umberto I Hospital, Rome, Italy.
Francesca Lourdes LiaDepartment of Maternal-Infant and Urologic Sciences, "Sapienza" University of Rome, Policlinico Umberto I Hospital, Rome, Italy.
Di Giulio IvanDepartment of Maternal-Infant and Urologic Sciences, "Sapienza" University of Rome, Policlinico Umberto I Hospital, Rome, Italy.
Davide RosatiDepartment of Maternal-Infant and Urologic Sciences, "Sapienza" University of Rome, Policlinico Umberto I Hospital, Rome, Italy.
Francesco Del GiudiceDepartment of Maternal-Infant and Urologic Sciences, "Sapienza" University of Rome, Policlinico Umberto I Hospital, Rome, Italy.
Alessandro SciarraDepartment of Maternal-Infant and Urologic Sciences, "Sapienza" University of Rome, Policlinico Umberto I Hospital, Rome, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7899-8056
Gianna MariottiDepartment of Maternal-Infant and Urologic Sciences, "Sapienza" University of Rome, Policlinico Umberto I Hospital, Rome, Italy.
Policlinico Umberto I · ITHumanitas University · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: To compare different forms of invasive treatments for postradical prostatectomy (RP) urinary incontinence (UI) in terms of quantitative and qualitative parameters and continence recovery rate. Methods: We distinguished five categories of treatment: Conclusion: In our analysis, the use of adjustable and fixed slings is associated with the highest whereas the use of bulking agents is associated with the lowest recovery rate of continence after treatment. Results are conditioned by an elevated rate of heterogeneity in part explained with a high variability of consistence in urinary leakage at baseline among populations.

Identifiers

PMID35774194
PMCPMC9239822
OpenAlexW4283270135

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.