Question · asked by 1 review

Obturator medial‐to‐lateral approach vs obturator lateral‐to‐medial approach: Denovo urgency or urgency incontinence

Obturator medial‐to‐lateral approach showed no clear difference in de novo urgency or urgency incontinence (short term, up to 12 months) compared with obturator lateral‐to‐medial approach (low certainty).

What each review found

Include earlier review versions
FindingEffectStudiesGRADE certainty
Obturator medial‐to‐lateral approach vs obturator lateral‐to‐medial approach
De novo urgency or urgency incontinence (short term, up to 12 months) · women with stress urinary incontinence
Obturator medial‐to‐lateral approach showed no clear difference in de novo urgency or urgency incontinence (short term, up to 12 months) compared with obturator lateral‐to‐medial approach (low certainty).
Mid‐urethral sling operations for stress urinary incontinence in women (2017) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 1.01 [0.46, 2.2]3 studies · 357 participantsLow

Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.

The reviews

ReviewSearched up toIncluded studiesAMSTAR 2
Mid‐urethral sling operations for stress urinary incontinence in women
2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
Not reportedlist not extracted yetNot assessed

Studies behind the findings

None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.

How reviews are matched to this question

Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.