Transobturator (TOR) vs retropubic (RPR) route: Denovo urgency or urgency incontinence
Transobturator (TOR) showed no clear difference in de novo urgency or urgency incontinence (short term, up to 12 months) compared with retropubic (RPR) route (moderate certainty).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Transobturator (TOR) vs retropubic (RPR) route De novo urgency or urgency incontinence (short term, up to 12 months) · women with stress urinary incontinence Transobturator (TOR) showed no clear difference in de novo urgency or urgency incontinence (short term, up to 12 months) compared with retropubic (RPR) route (moderate certainty). Mid‐urethral sling operations for stress urinary incontinence in women (2017) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 0.98 [0.82, 1.17] | 31 studies · 4923 participants | Moderate |
Transobturator (TOR) vs retropubic (RPR) route De novo urgency or urgency incontinence (short term, up to 12 months) · women with stress urinary incontinence Transobturator (TOR) showed no clear difference in de novo urgency or urgency incontinence (short term, up to 12 months) compared with retropubic (RPR) route (moderate certainty). Mid‐urethral sling operations for stress urinary incontinence in women (2015) · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyearlier version CD006375.PUB3, superseded | RR 0.98 [0.82, 1.17] | 31 studies · 4923 participants | Moderate |
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.