The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The effectiveness of surgery for stress incontinence in women: a systematic review
Abstract
Objective To determine the methodological quality of studies evaluating surgery for stress incontinence, the effectiveness of different procedures and the frequency of complications associated with each procedure. Materials and methods Eleven randomized controlled trials, 20 non‐randomized trials/prospective cohort studies and 45 retrospective cohort studies were reviewed systematically. Results The methodological quality of the 31 prospective studies was generally poor. The considerable variation in inclusion criteria, surgical management and assessment of outcome precluded any statistical meta‐analysis. Evidence as to the effectiveness of surgery for stress incontinence is weak; therefore, any conclusions are speculative. It appears that colposuspension may be more effective and the effect more long‐lasting than that following anterior colporrhaphy and needle suspension. There is little information on the value of sling procedures. Comparisons of different ways of performing each procedure show no significant differences in outcome but this may reflect the methodological weaknesses of the studies. Valid and reliable data on the frequency of complications following surgery are lacking so the safety of the procedures is unclear. Repeat operations to correct stress incontinence are less successful than first procedures but this finding may be subject to confounding. Conclusions There is an urgent need for some large, rigorous, prospective studies of high quality. Until such studies have been completed, recommendations as to the best clinical practice cannot be based on scientific evidence. Studies need to define cases according to widely accepted criteria, including standard measures of the severity of stress incontinence, and surgical terminology for the procedures performed needs to be standardized and outcomes need to be clearly defined, valid and reliable, not confined to short‐term assessment and include patients' views along with the surgeon's assessments.
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
Cited by
Downs, S. H., & Black, N. (1998) · Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health · doi:10.1136/jech.52.6.377 · Cited by 8,252
Self-citationExternal validity of randomised controlled trials: “To whom do the results of this trial apply?”
Rothwell, P. M. (2005) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(04)17670-8 · Cited by 2,544
Comparison of Evidence of Treatment Effects in Randomized and Nonrandomized Studies
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2001) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.286.7.821 · Cited by 919
Burch Colposuspension versus Fascial Sling to Reduce Urinary Stress Incontinence
Albo, M. E., Richter, H. E., Brubaker, L., Norton, P., Kraus, S. R., Zimmern, P. E., Chai, T. C., Zyczynski, H., Diokno, A. C., Tennstedt, S., et al. (2007) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa070416 · Cited by 508
Randomisation to protect against selection bias in healthcare trials
Odgaard-Jensen, J., Vist, G. E., Timmer, A., Kunz, R., Akl, E. A., Schünemann, H., Briel, M., Nordmann, A. J., Pregno, S., & Oxman, A. D. (2011) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.mr000012.pub3 · Cited by 439
Metadata
- Authors
- Black, N. A., & Downs, S. H.
- Venue
- British Journal of Urology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1996-10
- Volume
- 78
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 497-510
- ISSN
- 0007-1331 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2087474676
- Cited by
- 261
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 10.93
- Type
- journal article
- 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: The effectiveness of surgery for stress incontinence in women: a systematic review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1464-410x.1996.01422.x
- The paper
- Black, N. A., & Downs, S. H. (1996). The effectiveness of surgery for stress incontinence in women: a systematic review. British Journal of Urology. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1464-410x.1996.01422.x
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.