ReviewTherapeutic advances in urology
CO
Review in Therapeutic advances in urology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Exploring the role of laser therapy for stress urinary incontinence: a literature review.Lasers in medical science · 2025Pooled it
- How Long Does Urinary Continence Last After Treatment with Intravaginal COInternational urogynecology journal · 2025Trial
- The Long-Term Effectiveness of Fractional COInternational urogynecology journal · 2026Article
- A Randomized Controlled Pilot Trial Evaluating the Efficacy of Intravaginal and Extravaginal K-Laser Therapy as a Personalized Non-Hormonal Treatment for Genitourinary Syndrome of Menopause.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Article
- Energies and new technologies in pelvic and pelvic floor dysfunctions.Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia · 2025Review
- Instruments Used for the Assessment of SUI Severity in Urogynecologic Surgical Trials: A Scoping Review.International urogynecology journal · 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
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Carbon dioxide (CO Objectives: To examine the efficacy of CO Design: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and cohort studies. Data sources and methods: Four databases were screened until January 2023. All efficacy continuous endpoints were assessed Results: A total of 15 studies with 700 patients were analyzed. CO Conclusion: CO
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.