ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2025
Ultrasound Evaluation of Midurethral Slings: With and Without Concurrent Apical Suspension.
Article in International urogynecology journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Letter to Editor on "Ultrasound Evaluation of Midurethral Slings: With and Without Concurrent Apical Suspension".International urogynecology journal · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisMidurethral sling (MUS) success may depend on sling positioning along the urethra, which may be affected by concurrent apical prolapse repair. Our prospective cohort study evaluated differences in MUS positioning using translabial ultrasound in women who had MUS only versus those with concurrent apical prolapse repair.
methodsWomen undergoing MUS with or without concurrent prolapse repair were enrolled. MUS was placed after the apical suspension. Ultrasound images were obtained at the beginning of the case, after suspension (if applicable), and following sling placement. Two experts reviewed the images and measured the urethral length, sling positioning along the urethra, and the angle between the urethra and the pubic symphysis. Measurements were averaged for statistical analysis.
resultsFifty-one women participated: 27 in the MUS alone group and 24 in the concurrent group. There were no differences in urethral length (27.4 vs 27.2 mm, p = 0.728), MUS position (0.24 vs 0.26 mm; p = 0.71), or angle (24° vs 23°, p = 0.574). Both groups demonstrated a significant improvement in Urinary Distress Inventory6 scores.
conclusionsThere have been conflicting reports of MUS success when placed on its own versus at the time of prolapse repair. One hypothesis has been that positioning of the MUS may be affected by the prolapse repair. Our study did not observe any difference in the MUS positioning along the urethra, nor sling angle when placed with or without a concurrent prolapse repair.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40762821What 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.