↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Bladder neck needle suspension for urinary incontinence in women

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
149 Mendeley
Title
Bladder neck needle suspension for urinary incontinence in women
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003636.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cathryn MA Glazener, Kevin Cooper, Atefeh Mashayekhi

Abstract

Bladder neck needle suspension is an operation traditionally used for moderate or severe stress urinary incontinence in women. About a third of adult women experience some urinary incontinence, and about a third of these have moderate or severe symptoms. Stress urinary incontinence (SUI) imposes significant health and economic burdens on society and the women affected. To determine the effects of needle suspension on stress or mixed urinary incontinence in comparison with other management options. We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE in process, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP and handsearching of journals and conference proceedings (searched 12 November 2014), and the reference lists of relevant articles. Randomised or quasi-randomised trials that included needle suspension for the treatment of urinary incontinence. At least two authors assessed trials and extracted data independently. Two trial investigators provided additional information. We identified 10 trials, which included 375 women having six different types of needle suspension procedures and 489 who received comparison interventions. Needle suspensions were more likely to fail than open abdominal retropubic suspension. There was a higher subjective failure rate after the first year (91/313 (29%) failed versus 47/297 (16%) failed after open abdominal retropubic suspension). The risk ratio (RR) was 2.00 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.47 to 2.72), although the difference in peri-operative complications was not significant (17/75 (23%) versus 12/77 (16%); RR 1.44, 95% CI 0.73 to 2.83). There were no significant differences for the other outcome measures. This effect was seen in both women with primary incontinence and women with recurrent incontinence after failed primary operations. Needle suspensions may be as effective as anterior vaginal repair (50/156 (32%) failed after needle suspension versus 64/181 (35%) after anterior repair; RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.16), but there was little information about morbidity. Data for comparison with suburethral slings were inconclusive because they came from a small and atypical population.No trials compared needle suspensions with conservative management, peri-urethral injections, or sham or laparoscopic surgery. Bladder neck needle suspension surgery is probably not as good as open abdominal retropubic suspension for the treatment of primary and secondary urodynamic stress incontinence because the cure rates were lower in the trials reviewed. However, the reliability of the evidence was limited by poor quality and small trials. There was not enough information to comment on comparisons with suburethral sling operations. Although cure rates were similar after needle suspension compared with after anterior vaginal repair, the data were insufficient to be reliable and inadequate to compare morbidity. A Brief Economic Commentary (BEC) identified no cost-effectiveness studies comparing bladder neck needle suspension with other surgeries.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 149 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 149 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 23 15%
Student > Bachelor 16 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 7%
Unspecified 11 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 7%
Other 26 17%
Unknown 52 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 38 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 20 13%
Unspecified 11 7%
Psychology 7 5%
Social Sciences 5 3%
Other 15 10%
Unknown 53 36%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 March 2022.
All research outputs
#2,487,582
of 22,992,311 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,149
of 12,348 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,373
of 316,999 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#141
of 272 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,992,311 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,348 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 316,999 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 272 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.