ReviewUrologie (Heidelberg, Germany)2026
[Male slings-an overview].
Review in Urologie (Heidelberg, Germany), 2026. 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Surgical management of male stress urinary incontinence following prostatectomy includes fixed and adjustable male slings as well as the artificial urinary sphincter. Owing to high revision rates of the sphincter and strong patient preference, passive sling systems have gained increased clinical relevance. Fixed slings are primarily indicated in men with mild to moderate incontinence and preserved residual sphincter function, whereas adjustable slings serve as an intermediate option for patients with more severe leakage or prior radiotherapy. Although the overall level of evidence is limited by heterogeneous inclusion criteria and the lack of randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses demonstrate meaningful improvements in continence and quality of life in appropriately selected patients. Adjustable systems permit postoperative readjustment and may compensate for long-term deterioration but are associated with higher revision and complication rates. Careful patient selection based on clinical history, urethroscopy, and urodynamic assessment remains essential to optimize outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41772158What 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.