| Title |
Surgery for recurrent stress urinary incontinence: the views of surgeons and women
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Urogynecology Journal & Pelvic Floor Dysfunction, June 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00192-017-3376-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Douglas G. Tincello, Natalie Armstrong, Paul Hilton, Brian Buckley, Christopher Mayne |
| Abstract |
The objectives were to explore the views of women with recurrent stress incontinence (SUI) with regard to treatment preferences and the acceptability of randomisation to a future trial, and to survey the views of UK specialists on treatment preferences and equipoise regarding different treatment alternatives. An online survey of the British Society of Urogynaecology (BSUG) and British Society of Urological Surgeons (BAUS) was carried out. Qualitative semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of surgeons and women suffering from recurrent SUI from three UK centres. Two hundred fifty-six survey replies were received (176 gynaecology; 80 urology). Comparing the treatments offered, urogynaecologists were more likely to offer pelvic floor exercises (p < 0.05), and repeat midurethral tape (MUT) (p < 0.001). From the Surgical Equipoise Scale (SES) responses, "no preference" was rarely the commonest response. Marked differences for several options existed; midurethral tape dominated responses whenever it appeared. Twenty-one clinicians were interviewed. Treatment preferences were complex, influenced by a range of factors (reason for failure, patient comorbidity, investigations, personal experience, training). A future trial was regarded as important. Eleven women were interviewed. Most had considered more than one option, but felt that decision-making was more a process of elimination rather than a positive process. Randomisation to a study was regarded as unacceptable by most. No consensus exists among surgeons about preferred treatment options for recurrent SUI, and personal experience and training dominate decision-making. For patients, choices were usually based on an elimination of options, including that of a repeat failed procedure. This contrasts with surgeons, who mostly preferred a repeat MUT above other options. Any future comparative study will be challenging. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 108 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 45 | 42% |
| United States | 8 | 7% |
| Australia | 7 | 6% |
| Ireland | 2 | 2% |
| Spain | 2 | 2% |
| Namibia | 2 | 2% |
| Sweden | 1 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Norway | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 2 | 2% |
| Unknown | 37 | 34% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 85 | 79% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 14 | 13% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 4 | 4% |
| Scientists | 3 | 3% |
| Unknown | 2 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 47 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 6 | 13% |
| Researcher | 5 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 8 | 17% |
| Unknown | 15 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 32% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 6% |
| Psychology | 1 | 2% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 6% |
| Unknown | 21 | 45% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 69. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 December 2023.
All research outputs
#627,673
of 25,539,438 outputs
Outputs from International Urogynecology Journal & Pelvic Floor Dysfunction
#24
of 2,907 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,006
of 332,062 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Urogynecology Journal & Pelvic Floor Dysfunction
#3
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,539,438 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,907 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 332,062 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.