Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 509

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Prospective multicentre randomised trial of tension-free vaginal tape and colposuspension as primary treatment for stress incontinence

Open access
Ward, Karen, Hilton, Paul·2002·BMJ

Abstract

Objective: To compare tension-free vaginal tape with colposuspension as primary treatment for stress incontinence. Design: Multicentred randomised comparative trial. Setting: Gynaecology or urology departments in 14 centres in the United Kingdom and Eire, including university teaching hospitals and district general hospitals. Participants: 344 women with urodynamic stress incontinence; 175 randomised to tension-free vaginal tape and 169 to colposuspension Main outcome measures: Assessment before treatment and at six months postoperatively with the SF-36, the Bristol female lower urinary tract symptoms questionnaire, the EQ-5D health questionnaire, a one week urinary diary, one hour perineal pad test, cystometry, and, in some centres, urethral profilometry. Results: 23 women in the colposuspension group and 5 in the vaginal tape group withdrew before surgery. No significant difference was found between the groups for cure rates: 115 (66%) women in the vaginal tape group and 97 (57%) in the colposuspension group were objectively cured (95% confidence interval for difference in cure −4.7% to 21.3%). Bladder injury was more common during the vaginal tape procedure; postoperative complications, in particular delayed resumption of micturition, were more common after colposuspension. Operation time, duration of hospital stay, and return to normal activity were all longer after colposuspension than after the vaginal tape procedure. Conclusion: Surgery with tension-free vaginal tape is associated with more operative complications than colposuspension, but colposuspension is associated with more postoperative complications and longer recovery. Vaginal tape shows promise for the treatment of urodynamic stress incontinence because of minimal access and rapid recovery times; cure rates at six months were comparable with colposuspension. What is already known on this topic: Few randomised trials exist on surgery for stress incontinence Systematic reviews suggest that colposuspension is associated with cure rates of up to 90% Case series of tension-free vaginal tape suggest cure rates of about 85%, with rapid return to normal activity What this study adds: At six months the tension-free vaginal tape procedure is as effective as colposuspension for the primary treatment of stress incontinence Operative complications were more common with vaginal tape, but duration of hospital stay and return to normal activity were shorter than with colposuspension Postoperative complications were more common after colposuspension

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmj.325.7355.67

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

See all 509

Metadata

Authors
Ward, K., & Hilton, P.
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2002-07-13
Volume
325
Issue
7355
Pages
67
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
  • 1468-5833
OpenAlex
W2033906730
Cited by
509
References
0
FWCI
24.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Prospective multicentre randomised trial of tension-free vaginal tape and colposuspension as primary treatment for stress incontinence. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.325.7355.67
The paper
Ward, K., & Hilton, P. (2002). Prospective multicentre randomised trial of tension-free vaginal tape and colposuspension as primary treatment for stress incontinence. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.325.7355.67

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.