Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37305630›Full record

ReviewTranslational andrology and urology2023

Changes and debates in male stress urinary incontinence surgery practice patterns: a contemporary review.

Tej J Desai, Alexander T Rozanski

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Translational andrology and urology, 2023. 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
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

  1. Review
  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

2 authors.

Tej J DesaiDepartment of Urology, University of Texas Health San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, USA.
Alexander T RozanskiDepartment of Urology, University of Texas Health San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Surgery plays a crucial role in the definitive management of male stress urinary incontinence (SUI). The most utilized and well-studied surgical options include the artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) and the male sling (MS). The AUS has long been considered the "gold standard" and more versatile option in this space, showing effectiveness in mild, moderate, and severe SUI cases, whereas the MS is preferred in cases of mild to moderate SUI. Not surprisingly, and importantly, much of the published literature on male stress incontinence has focused on determining the "ideal" candidate for each procedure and identifying which clinical, device-specific, and patient factors play an important role in the objective and subjective success rates. There are, however, more granular, and sometimes debatable, topics to assess regarding the real-life practice patterns of male SUI surgery. The aim of this clinical practice review is to examine current trends of several of these topics including: AUS

Indexed as

artificial urinary sphincter (AUS)male sling (MS)Stress urinary incontinence (SUI)

Identifiers

PMID37305630
PMCPMC10251107

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.