SynthesisInternational urogynecology journal2023
Transdermal scopolamine and urinary retention following urogynecologic surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in International urogynecology journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mechanism of the Effect of Scopolamine on Breast Cancer: Determination by Network Pharmacology and Bioinformatics.Current computer-aided drug design · 2025Article
- A comprehensive analysis of in-hospital adverse events after scopolamine administration: insights from a retrospective cohort study using a large nationwide inpatient database.BMC anesthesiology · 2024Article
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 hypothesisBoth urogynecologic surgeries and transdermal scopolamine (TDS) patches are independently associated with postoperative urinary retention (POUR). It is unclear if the risk of POUR increases when these interventions are used in combination. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to synthesize current evidence to optimize clinical management and outcomes for patients undergoing urogynecologic procedures.
methodsThis systematic review was conducted in concordance with the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Cochrane Library were searched. Publications were filtered by inclusion and exclusion criteria. Inclusion criteria required: (1) preoperative or perioperative application of TDS, (2) surgery indicated for stress urinary incontinence and/or pelvic organ prolapse, (3) results given for postoperative voiding trials, and (4) were available in English. Exclusion criteria included: (1) oral or parenteral formulations of scopolamine, (2) administration of alternative preoperative antiemetics, and (3) use of combination antiemetic therapy. Quality was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Checklist. Publication bias was evaluated via the ROBINS-I assessment tool, and Egger regression and Begg and Mazumumdar rank correlation tests. A meta-analysis was conducted using Meta-Essentials Excel Workbook.
resultsFour publications were identified which complied with inclusion and exclusion criteria. Included studies comprised 752 patients (237 experimental group, 515 control group). All were retrospective cohort studies conducted via chart review in America. Meta-analysis revealed a risk ratio (RR) of 2.35 with a confidence interval (CI) of 0.61 to 9.07, indicating a positive association between TDS and POUR, but without statistical significance.
conclusionsCurrent evidence suggests that TDS application may be associated with increased risk of POUR following urogynecologic procedures. While research on this topic is greatly limited, this systematic review and meta-analysis highlights that alternative antiemetic therapy may be necessary for patients undergoing such interventions in effort to limit the risk of POUR.
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.