ArticleFrontiers in surgery2026
Surgical decision-making for primary stress urinary incontinence: insights from a nationwide survey of gynecologists in Turkey.
Article in Frontiers in surgery, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To delineate the surgical preferences of gynecologists in the management of primary stress urinary incontinence (SUI) and to explore the extent to which clinical experience, ingrained surgical habits, and procedural volume shape these therapeutic decisions. Methods: A national, web-based cross-sectional survey was distributed among practicing gynecologists across Turkey during the 2021 calendar year. Responses from 103 clinicians were analyzed. The questionnaire captured demographic profiles, operative case volumes, frequency of diagnostic laparoscopy, intraoperative cystoscopy practices, and the preferred surgical approach for primary SUI. Respondents were stratified into two cohorts: those favoring a vaginal sling procedure (encompassing TVT, TOT, or mini-sling techniques) and those opting for laparoscopic suspension (L/S), specifically laparoscopic colposuspension. Statistical computations were performed using IBM SPSS version 20. Results: A clear majority of respondents (87.1%) gravitated toward vaginal sling techniques, while laparoscopic suspension was the preferred approach for 12.9%. Notably, surgeons favoring the L/S route demonstrated a significantly higher annual volume of open Burch colposuspension experience ( Conclusion: The choice of surgical intervention for primary stress urinary incontinence extends beyond strict adherence to clinical guidelines; it remains intimately tied to the surgeon's individual technical repertoire and prior operative exposure. A background in advanced laparoscopy and the imprint of early surgical training emerge as potent determinants in the selection between retropubic suspension and sling-based therapies.
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.