↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Traditional suburethral sling operations 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

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
46 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
170 Mendeley
Title
Traditional suburethral sling operations for urinary incontinence in women
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd001754.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Haroon Rehman, Carlos A Bezerra, Homero Bruschini, June D Cody, Patricia Aluko

Abstract

Stress urinary incontinence constitutes a significant health and economic burden to society. Traditional suburethral slings are one of the surgical operations used to treat women with symptoms of stress urinary incontinence. To determine the effects of traditional suburethral slings on stress or mixed incontinence in comparison with other management options. We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register (searched 3 June 2010) and the reference lists of relevant articles. Randomised or quasi-randomised trials that included traditional suburethral slings for the treatment of stress or mixed urinary incontinence. At least three reviewers independently extracted data from included trials onto a standard form and assessed trial methodological quality. The data abstracted were relevant to predetermined outcome measures. Where appropriate, we calculated a summary statistic: a relative risk for dichotomous data and a weighted mean difference for continuous data. We included 26 trials involving 2284 women. The quality of evidence was moderate for most trials and there was generally short follow-up ranging from 6 to 24 months.One medium-sized trial compared traditional suburethral sling operations with oxybutynin in the treatment of women with mixed urinary incontinence. Surgery appeared to be more effective than drugs in treating participant-reported incontinence (n = 75, risk ratio (RR) 0.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.08 to 0.43).One trial found that traditional slings were more effective than transurethral injectable treatment (RR for clinician-assessed incontinence within a year 0.21, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.21)Seven trials compared slings with open abdominal retropubic colposuspension. Participant-reported incontinence was lower with the slings after one year (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.90), but not when assessed by clinicians. Colposuspension, however, was associated with fewer peri-operative complications, shorter duration of use of indwelling catheter and less long-term voiding dysfunction. One study showed there was a 20% lower risk of bladder perforation with the sling procedure but a 50% increase in urinary tract infection with the sling procedure compared with colposuspension. Fewer women developed prolapse after slings (compared with after colposuspension) in two small trials but this did not reach statistical significance.Twelve trials addressed the comparison between traditional sling operations and minimally invasive sling operations. These seemed to be equally effective in the short term (RR for incontinence within first year 0.97, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.20) but minimally invasive slings had a shorter operating time, fewer peri-operative complications (other than bladder perforation) and some evidence of less post-operative voiding dysfunction and detrusor symptoms.Six trials compared one type of traditional sling with another. Materials included porcine dermis, lyophilised dura mater, fascia lata, vaginal wall, autologous dermis and rectus fascia. Participant-reported improvement rates within the first year favoured the traditional autologous material rectus fascia over other biological materials (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.98). There were more complications with the use of non-absorbable Gore-Tex in one trial.Data for comparison of bladder neck needle suspension with suburethral slings were inconclusive because they came from a single trial with a small specialised population.No trials compared traditional suburethral slings with anterior repair, laparoscopic retropubic colposuspension or artificial sphincters. Most trials did not distinguish between women having surgery for primary or recurrent incontinence when reporting participant characteristics.For most of the comparisons, clinically important differences could not be ruled out. Traditional slings seem to be as effective as minimally invasive slings, but had higher rates of adverse effects. This should be interpreted with some caution however, as the quality of evidence for the studies was variable, follow-up short and populations small, particularly for identifying complication rates. Tradional sling procedures appeared to confer a similar cure rate in comparison to open retropubic colposuspension, but the long-term adverse event profile is still unclear. A brief economic commentary (BEC) identified two studies suggesting that traditional slings may be more cost-effective compared with collagen injection but not cost-effective when compared with minimally invasive sling operations. Reliable evidence to clarify whether or not traditional suburethral slings may be better or worse than other surgical or conservative management options is lacking.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 170 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Norway 1 <1%
Unknown 169 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 24 14%
Student > Bachelor 22 13%
Researcher 22 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 12%
Other 13 8%
Other 32 19%
Unknown 37 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 65 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 22 13%
Psychology 6 4%
Social Sciences 5 3%
Engineering 5 3%
Other 22 13%
Unknown 45 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 19 June 2018.
All research outputs
#4,236,771
of 14,549,615 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,187
of 10,994 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#91,525
of 268,165 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#186
of 256 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,549,615 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,994 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.2. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 268,165 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 256 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.