ReviewInternational urogynecology journal2026
Revision and Explantation After Permanent Sacral Neuromodulation for Overactive Bladder: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in International urogynecology journal, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisRevision and explantation after permanent sacral neuromodulation (SNM) for overactive bladder (OAB) are important but inconsistently reported. We estimated rates of revision and explantation after permanent implantable pulse generator (IPG) implantation and summarized reasons for each outcome.
methodsThis PROSPERO-registered review (CRD420261434099) searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and CENTRAL until June 26, 2026. Eligible studies included adults with OAB undergoing SNM IPG implantation with extractable revision or explantation outcomes. Random-effects proportional meta-analysis estimated pooled proportions with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Heterogeneity was assessed using I
resultsTwenty-seven studies included 3278 implanted patients. Revision analysis included 18 studies (1611 patients; 281 events): pooled proportion 12.6% (95% CI 7.4-20.7; I
conclusionsAfter permanent SNM for OAB, revision and explantation occur in a meaningful minority of patients and should be reported separately. Standardized time-to-event reporting is needed to improve counseling, device selection, and durability assessment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42671577What 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.