Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42776341›Full record

ReviewCurrent urology reports2026

Timing and Cost Consideration in Surgery for Male Stress Urinary Incontinence For Current Urology Reports.

Eric Chung, Charles Yizhou Ruan, Juan Wang

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current urology reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Eric ChungAndroUrology Centre, QLD and Sydney, Brisbane, NSW, Australia. ericchg@hotmail.com.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3373-3668
Charles Yizhou RuanUniversity of Queensland, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Juan WangAndroUrology Centre, QLD and Sydney, Brisbane, NSW, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewSurgery remains the standard of definitive care in male stress urinary incontinence (SUI). This narrative review provides a critical discussion of pertinent aspects of male continence surgery, including cost-benefit analysis and whether continence surgery should be offered earlier. RECENT

findingsControversies exist regarding the timing of surgery and whether the male sling (MS) is superior to the artificial urinary sphincter (AUS). Presently, significant gaps exist in the cost analysis and modelling for the most effective treatment in male SUI. Each continence device has its own merit and drawbacks, and patients should be counselled on the procedure, mechanics, expectations and surgical complications, with emphasis on shared decision-making and personalised care. More high-quality studies of surgical interventions, including direct comparison against non-surgical methods, coupled with in-depth evaluation on why patients choose a particular treatment over another, will be useful in preoperative counselling and streamlining decision-making in male SUI.

Indexed as

Urinary Incontinence, StressUrologic Surgical Procedures, MaleCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansMaleSuburethral SlingsTime FactorsUrinary Sphincter, ArtificialArtificial urinary sphincterMale slingSurgeryUrinary incontinence

Identifiers

PMID42776341
PMCPMC13601187

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.