Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

3 questions · 3 findings · 1 reviews

Sort:Best matchNewest Highest certainty Download CSV

No studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 0 · 0%Very low 1 · 33.3%Low 2 · 66.7%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%

Anterior prolapse repair: native tissue vs absorbable mesh

Bladder function ‐ Stress incontinence · women with anterior compartment pelvic organ prolapse

It is very uncertain whether anterior prolapse repair: native tissue changes stress urinary incontinence (2 years) compared with absorbable mesh (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Surgery for women with anterior compartment prolapse 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 0.72 [0.5, 1.05]
1 study · 49 participants
Very low

Anterior prolapse repair: native tissue vs polypropylene mesh

De novo stress urinary incontinence review 1 to 3 years · women with anterior compartment pelvic organ prolapse

Anterior prolapse repair: native tissue showed no clear difference in stress urinary incontinence (de novo) (1‐3 years) compared with polypropylene mesh (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Surgery for women with anterior compartment prolapse 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 0.67 [0.44, 1.01]
6 studies · 957 participants
Low

Anterior prolapse repair: native tissue vs polypropylene mesh

Repeat surgery for stress urinary incontinence (2 years) · women with anterior compartment pelvic organ prolapse

Anterior prolapse repair: native tissue showed no clear difference in repeat surgery for stress urinary incontinence (1‐2 years) compared with polypropylene mesh (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Surgery for women with anterior compartment prolapse 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 1.19 [0.6, 2.36]
5 studies · 881 participants
Low