Skip to main content
. 2017 Jul 26;2017(7):CD001754. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001754.pub4

Summary of findings 5.

Traditional suburethral sling operation compared to another traditional suburethral sling for stress urinary incontinence

Traditional suburethral sling operation compared to another traditional suburethral sling for stress urinary incontinence
Patient or population: women with stress urinary incontinence Settings: secondary care Intervention: traditional suburethral sling operation Comparison: another traditional suburethral sling
Outcomes Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) Relative effect (95% CI) No of participants (studies) Quality of the evidence (GRADE) Comments
Assumed risk Corresponding risk
Another traditional suburethral sling Traditional suburethral sling operation
10.1 Number with incontinence (worse, unchanged or improved) within the first year (women's observations) 336 per 10001 299 per 1000 (222 to 400) RR 0.89 (0.66 to 1.19) 307 (3 studies) ⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate2,3
10.3 Number with incontinence (worse, unchanged or improved) after first year (women's observations) 467 per 10001 416 per 1000 (336 to 514) RR 0.89 (0.72 to 1.1) 379 (4 studies) ⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate2,4
10.8 Peri‐operative surgical complications 360 per 10001 335 per 1000 (234 to 479) RR 0.93 (0.65 to 1.33) 213 (2 studies) ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low3,4
10.12 Voiding dysfunction 202 per 10001 234 per 1000 (131 to 418) RR 1.16 (0.65 to 2.07) 165 (1 study) ⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate2,3,5
*The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio;
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.

1Illustrative comparative risks were based upon the mean risk on control intervention in the studies included in the meta‐analysis. 2Uncertainty in most studies about method of sequence generation and allocation concealment. 395% confidence interval around the pooled data includes both 1) no effect and 2) appreciable benefit or appreciable harm, thus imprecise. 4Widely differing estimates of the treatment effect between trials. 5Single trial thus unable to determine inconsistency.