SynthesisInternational urogynecology journal2025
Urethral Bulking Agent as a Salvage Procedure for Female Stress Urinary Incontinence: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in International urogynecology journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 hypothesisRecurrent stress urinary incontinence (rSUI) poses a management challenge to clinicians and patients due to limited evidence on optimal salvage options following failed prior procedures. This study aims to assess the efficacy of urethral bulking agents (UBAs) as a salvage treatment for rSUI.
methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. A search was conducted using Embase (Ovid), PubMed (Medline) and Cochrane databases. All studies involving women who underwent UBA for rSUI were included. Five hundred sixty-three studies were screened for inclusion; 249 were excluded as duplicates and 261 studies were excluded as irrelevant, leaving 53 full-text studies for eligibility assessment. Thirty-nine studies were excluded during full text review, leaving 14 studies that met inclusion criteria. The reference lists of these studies were screened to identify a further six studies. Ultimately, a total of 20 studies were selected for qualitative and quantitative analysis.
resultsThe selected studies utilised a variety of subjective patient-reported outcome measures and objective measures. Subjective patient satisfaction ranged from 45.10% to 96.50%, with a pooled rate of 77.00%. Objective cure and improvement ranged from 19.60% to 83.00%, with a pooled rate of 56.00%. Patient-reported cure and improvement ranged from 67% to 83% in primary UBA populations, and 56.50% to 75.00% in salvage UBA populations. Rates of re-intervention following salvage UBAs ranged from 9.80% to 42.00%.
conclusionsUBAs offer a viable salvage option for women with rSUI, especially those desirous of a minimally invasive approach with low complication rates and rapid recovery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41065850What 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.