Traditional suburethral sling operation vs injectable treatment: Voiding dysfunction
Traditional suburethral slings showed no clear difference in 4.4 Voiding dysfunction compared with injectable treatment (low certainty).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Traditional suburethral slings vs injectable treatment 4.4 Voiding dysfunction · women with stress urinary incontinence Traditional suburethral slings showed no clear difference in 4.4 Voiding dysfunction compared with injectable treatment (low certainty). Traditional suburethral sling operations for urinary incontinence in women (2017) · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyearlier version CD001754.PUB4, superseded | RR 4.19 [0.51, 34.5] | 1 study · 43 participants | Low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Traditional suburethral sling operations for urinary incontinence in women 2020 · 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.