The DOI matches its Crossref record; 66 of the 66 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Minimally invasive synthetic suburethral sling operations for stress urinary incontinence in women
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Stress urinary incontinence (SUI) is a common condition affecting up to 30% of women. Minimally invasive synthetic suburethral sling operations are among the latest forms of procedures introduced to treat SUI. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of minimally invasive synthetic suburethral sling operations for treatment of SUI, urodynamic stress incontinence (USI) or mixed urinary incontinence (MUI) in women. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register (searched 20 March 2008), MEDLINE (January 1950 to April 2008), EMBASE (January 1988 to April 2008), CINAHL (January 1982 to April 2008), AMED (January 1985 to April 2008), the UK National Research Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, and reference lists of relevant articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials amongst women with SUI, USI or symptoms of stress or mixed urinary incontinence, in which at least one trial arm involved a minimally invasive synthetic suburethral sling operations. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors assessed the methodological quality of potentially eligible studies and independently extracted data from the included trials. MAIN RESULTS: Sixty two trials involving 7101 women were included. The quality of evidence was moderate for most trials. Minimally invasive synthetic suburethral sling operations appeared to be as effective as traditional suburethral slings ( trials, n = 599, Risk Ratio (RR) 1.03, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.94 to 1.13) but with shorter operating time and less post-operative voiding dysfunction and de novo urgency symptoms.Minimally invasive synthetic suburethral sling operations appeared to be as effective as open retropubic colposuspension (subjective cure rate at 12 months RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.03; at 5 years RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.12) with fewer perioperative complications, less postoperative voiding dysfunction, shorter operative time and hospital stay but significantly more bladder perforations (6% versus 1%, RR 4.24, 95% CI 1.71 to 10.52).There was conflicting evidence about the effectiveness of minimally invasive synthetic suburethral sling operations compared to laparoscopic colposuspension in the short term (objective cure, RR 1.15, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.24; subjective cure RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.24). Minimally invasive synthetic suburethral sling operations had significantly less de novo urgency and urgency incontinence, shorter operating time, hospital stay and time to return to daily activities.A retropubic bottom-to-top route was more effective than top-to-bottom route (RR 1.10, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.20; RR 1.06, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.11) and incurred significantly less voiding dysfunction, bladder perforations and tape erosions.Monofilament tapes had significantly higher objective cure rates (RR 1.15, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.30) compared to multifilament tapes and fewer tape erosions (1.3% versus 6% RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.00).The obturator route was less favourable than the retropubic route in objective cure (84% versus 88%; RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.93 to 0.99; 17 trials, n = 2434), although there was no difference in subjective cure rates. However, there was less voiding dysfunction, blood loss, bladder perforation (0.3% versus 5.5%, RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.26) and shorter operating time with the obturator route. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The current evidence base suggests that minimally invasive synthetic suburethral sling operations are as effective as traditional suburethral slings, open retropubic colposuspension and laparoscopic colposuspension in the short term but with less postoperative complications. Women were less likely to be continent after operations performed via the obturator (rather than retropubic) route, but they had fewer complications. Most of the trials had short term follow up and the quality of the evidence was variable.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses
Higgins, J. P. T., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2003) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557 · Cited by 63,139
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions: Cochrane Book Series
(2008) · doi:10.1002/9780470712184 · Cited by 25,048
Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary?
Jadad, A. R., Moore, R. A., Carroll, D., Jenkinson, C., Reynolds, D. J. M., Gavaghan, D. J., & McQuay, H. J. (1996) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(95)00134-4 · Cited by 17,582
SF-36 health survey: Manual and interpretation guide
Ware, J. (2003) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 11,424
Pharmacological interventions for somatoform disorders in adults
Kleinstäuber, M., Witthöft, M., Steffanowski, A., van Marwijk, H., Hiller, W., & Lambert, M. J. (2014) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd010628.pub2 · Cited by 11,335
Abrams, P., Cardozo, L., Fall, M., Griffiths, D., Rosier, P., Ulmsten, U., van Kerrebroeck, P., Victor, A., & Wein, A. (2002) · Neurourology and Urodynamics · doi:10.1002/nau.10052 · Cited by 8,296
Moher, D., Schulz, K. F., & Altman, D. G. (2001) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-1-2 · Cited by 2,755
Clinical Practice Guideline: Otitis Media with Effusion (Update)
Rosenfeld, R. M., Shin, J. J., Schwartz, S. R., Coggins, R., Gagnon, L., Hackell, J. M., Hoelting, D., Hunter, L. L., Kummer, A. W., Payne, S. C., et al. (2016) · Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery · doi:10.1177/0194599815623467 · Cited by 2,006
The Hazards of Scoring the Quality of Clinical Trials for Meta-analysis
Jüni, P. (1999) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.282.11.1054 · Cited by 1,981
An ambulatory surgical procedure under local anesthesia for treatment of female urinary incontinence
Ulmsten, U., Henriksson, L., Johnson, P., & Varhos, G. (1996) · International Urogynecology Journal and Pelvic Floor Dysfunction · doi:10.1007/bf01902378 · Cited by 1,715
Cited by
Risk factors and interventions with statistically significant tiny effects
Siontis, G. C., & Ioannidis, J. P. (2011) · International Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/ije/dyr099 · Cited by 80
Clinical guideline for female lower urinary tract symptoms
TAKAHASHI, S., TAKEI, M., NISHIZAWA, O., YAMAGUCHI, O., KATO, K., GOTOH, M., YOSHIMURA, Y., TAKEYAMA, M., OZAWA, H., SHIMADA, M., et al. (2016) · LUTS: Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms · doi:10.1111/luts.12111 · Cited by 47
Urogenital consequences in ageing women
Doumouchtsis, S. K., & Chrysanthopoulou, E. L. (2013) · Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology · doi:10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2013.03.007 · Cited by 30
Metadata
- Authors
- Ogah, J., Cody, J. D., & Rogerson, L.
- Venue
- Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
- Publisher
- John Wiley & Sons, Ltd
- Published
- 2009-10-07
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- CD006375-CD006375
- ISSN
- 1361-6137 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1484993839
- Cited by
- 290
- References
- 66
- Type
- reference entry
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Minimally invasive synthetic suburethral sling operations for stress urinary incontinence in women. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/14651858.cd006375.pub2
- The paper
- Ogah, J., Cody, J. D., & Rogerson, L. (2009). Minimally invasive synthetic suburethral sling operations for stress urinary incontinence in women. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd006375.pub2
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.