↓ Skip to main content

Bladder neck needle suspension 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

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
67 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
Bladder neck needle suspension for urinary incontinence in women
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003636.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cathryn MA Glazener, Kevin Cooper, Atefeh Mashayekhi

Abstract

Bladder neck needle suspension is an operation traditionally used for moderate or severe stress urinary incontinence in women. About a third of adult women experience some urinary incontinence, and about a third of these have moderate or severe symptoms. Stress urinary incontinence (SUI) imposes significant health and economic burdens on society and the women affected. To determine the effects of needle suspension on stress or mixed urinary incontinence in comparison with other management options. We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE in process, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP and handsearching of journals and conference proceedings (searched 12 November 2014), and the reference lists of relevant articles. Randomised or quasi-randomised trials that included needle suspension for the treatment of urinary incontinence. At least two authors assessed trials and extracted data independently. Two trial investigators provided additional information. We identified 10 trials, which included 375 women having six different types of needle suspension procedures and 489 who received comparison interventions. Needle suspensions were more likely to fail than open abdominal retropubic suspension. There was a higher subjective failure rate after the first year (91/313 (29%) failed versus 47/297 (16%) failed after open abdominal retropubic suspension). The risk ratio (RR) was 2.00 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.47 to 2.72), although the difference in peri-operative complications was not significant (17/75 (23%) versus 12/77 (16%); RR 1.44, 95% CI 0.73 to 2.83). There were no significant differences for the other outcome measures. This effect was seen in both women with primary incontinence and women with recurrent incontinence after failed primary operations. Needle suspensions may be as effective as anterior vaginal repair (50/156 (32%) failed after needle suspension versus 64/181 (35%) after anterior repair; RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.16), but there was little information about morbidity. Data for comparison with suburethral slings were inconclusive because they came from a small and atypical population.No trials compared needle suspensions with conservative management, peri-urethral injections, or sham or laparoscopic surgery. Bladder neck needle suspension surgery is probably not as good as open abdominal retropubic suspension for the treatment of primary and secondary urodynamic stress incontinence because the cure rates were lower in the trials reviewed. However, the reliability of the evidence was limited by poor quality and small trials. There was not enough information to comment on comparisons with suburethral sling operations. Although cure rates were similar after needle suspension compared with after anterior vaginal repair, the data were insufficient to be reliable and inadequate to compare morbidity. A Brief Economic Commentary (BEC) identified no cost-effectiveness studies comparing bladder neck needle suspension with other surgeries.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 67 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 19%
Unspecified 12 18%
Student > Bachelor 11 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 16%
Researcher 5 7%
Other 15 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 40%
Unspecified 15 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 13%
Social Sciences 3 4%
Engineering 3 4%
Other 10 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 18 January 2018.
All research outputs
#7,599,547
of 13,190,464 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,375
of 10,519 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#130,857
of 265,092 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#216
of 257 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,190,464 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,519 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.6. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 265,092 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 257 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.