SynthesisInternational urogynecology journal2023
Adjustable slings versus other surgical methods in female stress urinary incontinence: 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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparison of nonimplantable electrical stimulation in women with urinary incontinence: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Scientific reports · 2024Pooled it
- Continence Is Not Affected after Sling Revision with Transvaginal Tape Elongation for Post-Sling Voiding Dysfunction.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Establishing urogynecology subspecialty in Armenia: The Armenia project.International urogynecology journal · 2023Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisThe objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of different adjustable slings compared to other surgical methods for the treatment of stress urinary incontinence (SUI) among women.
methodsThe inclusion criteria were as follows: randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs assessing adult women with SUI. The exclusion criteria were as follows: other types of urinary incontinence, studies that combined conservative interventions and pharmacological treatment, pregnant and lactating patients. Databases were searched up to November 2022 to identify articles evaluating the effectiveness and safety of different adjustable slings compared to other surgical methods for the treatment of SUI among women. The systematic review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA 2020 checklist and registered in PROSPERO. Risk-of-bias assessment tools recommended by the Cochrane Society were used to evaluate the risk of bias in the included studies.
resultsEighteen clinical trials were included in this systematic review, and 11 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Fourteen studies were RCTs, and four were retrospective studies. Only RCTs were included in the meta-analyses. There was no statistically significant difference in the objective cure rate, subjective cure rate, or long-term postoperative complication rate between Ajust single-incision mini-slings (SIMS) and standard mid-urethral slings (SMUS) or MiniArc SIMS. However, the operation time in the adjustable SIMS group was significantly shorter (RR = -4.20, 95% CI: [-7.51, -0.89], p = 0.01).
conclusionsThis systematic review and meta-analysis revealed that adjustable SIMS is equally effective when compared with SMUS for the treatment of SUI among women. Moreover, the operation time for the adjustable SIMS was shorter. However, additional well-designed studies with standard outcome measures and complete follow-up periods will help to increase confidence in the choice of different options for treating SUI among women.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37067572What 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.