Monofilament vs minimally invasive synthetic slings: Bladder or urethral perforation
Monofilament showed no clear difference in bladder or urethral perforation compared with multifilament minimally invasive synthetic suburethral slings; GRADE not reported.
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Monofilament vs multifilament minimally invasive synthetic suburethral slings Bladder or urethral perforation · patients with stress urinary incontinence in women Monofilament showed no clear difference in bladder or urethral perforation compared with multifilament minimally invasive synthetic suburethral slings; GRADE not reported. Mid‐urethral sling operations for stress urinary incontinence in women (2009) · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyearlier version CD006375.PUB2, superseded | RR 0.76 [0.29, 1.99] | 3 studies · 400 participants | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mid‐urethral sling operations for stress urinary incontinence in women 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not 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.