↓ Skip to main content

Urethral injection therapy for urinary incontinence in women

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (67th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
45 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
151 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Urethral injection therapy for urinary incontinence in women
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003881.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Vivienne Kirchin, Tobias Page, Phil E Keegan, Kofi OM Atiemo, June D Cody, Samuel McClinton, Patricia Aluko

Abstract

Urinary incontinence imposes a significant health and economic burden to society. Periurethral or transurethral injection of bulking agents is a minimally invasive surgical procedure used as one the surgical treatments of stress urinary incontinence (SUI) in adult women. To assess the effects of periurethral or transurethral injection therapy on the cure or improvement of urinary incontinence in women. We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Trials Register (searched 8 November 2010) and the reference lists of relevant articles. All randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials of treatment for urinary incontinence in which at least one management arm involved periurethral or transurethral injection therapy. Two review authors independently assessed methodological quality of each study using explicit criteria. Data extraction was undertaken independently and clarification concerning possible unreported data sought directly from the investigators. Excluding duplicate reports, we identified 14 trials (excluding one that was subsequently withdrawn from publication and not included in this analysis) including 2004 women that met the inclusion criteria. The limited data available were not suitable for meta-analysis because they all came from separate trials. Trials were small and generally of moderate quality.One trial of 45 women that compared injection therapy with conservative treatment showed early benefit for the injectable therapy with respect to continence grade (risk ratio (RR) 0.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.52 to 0.94) and quality of life (mean difference (MD) 0.54, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.92). Another trial, comparing Injection of autologous fat with placebo, terminated early because of safety concerns. Two trials that compared injection with surgical management found significantly better objective cure in the surgical group (RR 4.77, 95% CI 1.96 to 11.64; and RR 1.69, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.79), although the latter trial data did not reach statistical significance if an intention-to-treat analysis was used.Eight trials compared different agents and all results had wide confidence intervals. Silicone particles, calcium hydroxylapatite, ethylene vinyl alcohol, carbon spheres and dextranomer hyaluronic acid combination gave improvements which were not shown to be more or less efficacious than collagen. Dextranomer hyaluronic acid compound treated patients appeared to have significantly higher rates of injection site complications (16% with the hyaluronic acid compound versus none with collagen; RR 37.78, 95% CI 2.34 to 610.12) and this product has now been withdrawn from the market.A comparison of periurethral and transurethral methods of injection found similar outcomes but a higher (though not statistically significant) rate of early complications in the periurethral group. One trial of 30 women showed a weak (but not clinically significant) advantage for patient satisfaction (data not suitable for analysis in RevMan) after mid-urethral injection in comparison to bladder neck injection but with no demonstrable difference in continence levels. The available evidence base remains insufficient to guide practice. In addition, the finding that placebo saline injection was followed by a similar symptomatic improvement to bulking agent injection raises questions about the mechanism of any beneficial effects. One small trial comparing silicone particles with pelvic floor muscle training was suggestive of benefit at three months but it is not known if this was sustained, and the treatment was associated with high levels of postoperative retention and dysuria. Greater symptomatic improvement was observed with surgical treatments, though the advantages need to be set against likely higher risks. No clear-cut conclusions could be drawn from trials comparing alternative agents, although dextranomer hyaluronic acid was associated with more local side effects and is no longer commercially available for this indication. There is insufficient evidence to show superiority of mid-urethral or bladder neck injection. The single trial of autologous fat provides a reminder that periurethral injections can occasionally cause serious side effects. Also, a Brief Economic Commentary (BEC) identified three studies suggesting that urethral bulking agent might be more cost-effective compared with retropubic mid-urethral slings, transobturator or traditional sling procedure when used as an initial treatment in women without hypermobility or as a follow-up to surgery failure provided injection is kept minimal. However, urethral bulking agent might not be cost-effective when compared with traditional sling as an initial treatment of SUI when a patient is followed up for a longer period (15 months post-surgery).

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 151 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 150 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 26 17%
Unspecified 23 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 13%
Researcher 20 13%
Student > Bachelor 17 11%
Other 45 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 56 37%
Unspecified 35 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 7%
Psychology 9 6%
Other 28 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 26. 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 12 February 2019.
All research outputs
#625,553
of 13,415,596 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,020
of 10,587 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,796
of 265,646 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#84
of 261 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,415,596 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,587 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 265,646 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 261 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.