↓ Skip to main content

Male synthetic sling versus artificial urinary sphincter trial for men with urodynamic stress incontinence after prostate surgery (MASTER): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 Mendeley
Title
Male synthetic sling versus artificial urinary sphincter trial for men with urodynamic stress incontinence after prostate surgery (MASTER): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial
Published in
Trials, February 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13063-018-2501-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lynda Constable, Nikki Cotterill, David Cooper, Cathryn Glazener, Marcus J. Drake, Mark Forrest, Chris Harding, Mary Kilonzo, Graeme MacLennan, Kirsty McCormack, Alison McDonald, Anthony Mundy, John Norrie, Robert Pickard, Craig Ramsay, Rebecca Smith, Samantha Wileman, Paul Abrams

Abstract

Stress urinary incontinence (SUI) is a frequent adverse effect for men undergoing prostate surgery. A large proportion (around 8% after radical prostatectomy and 2% after transurethral resection of prostate (TURP)) are left with severe disabling incontinence which adversely effects their quality of life and many are reliant on containment measures such as pads (27% and 6% respectively). Surgery is currently the only option for active management of the problem. The overwhelming majority of surgeries for persistent bothersome SUI involve artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) insertion. However, this is expensive, and necessitates manipulation of a pump to enable voiding. More recently, an alternative to AUS has been developed - a synthetic sling for men which elevates the urethra, thus treating SUI. This is thought, by some, to be less invasive, more acceptable and less expensive than AUS but clear evidence for this is lacking. The MASTER trial aims to determine whether the male synthetic sling is non-inferior to implantation of the AUS for men who have SUI after prostate surgery (for cancer or benign disease), judged primarily on clinical effectiveness but also considering relative harms and cost-effectiveness. Men with urodynamic stress incontinence (USI) after prostate surgery, for whom surgery is judged appropriate, are the target population. We aim to recruit men from secondary care urological centres in the UK NHS who carry out surgery for post-prostatectomy incontinence. Outcomes will be assessed by participant-completed questionnaires and 3-day urinary bladder diaries at baseline, 6, 12 and 24 months. The 24-h urinary pad test will be used at baseline as an objective assessment of urine loss. Clinical data will be completed at the time of surgery to provide details of the operative procedures, complications and resource use in hospital. At 12 months, men will also have a clinical review to evaluate the results of surgery (including another 24-h pad test) and to identify problems or need for further treatment. A robust examination of the comparative effectiveness of the male synthetic sling will provide high-quality evidence to determine whether or not it should be adopted widely in the NHS. International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Registry: Number ISRCTN49212975 . Registered on 22 July 2013. First patient randomised on 29 January 2014.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 29 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 14%
Unspecified 4 14%
Professor 3 10%
Student > Postgraduate 3 10%
Other 9 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 48%
Unspecified 9 31%
Computer Science 2 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 2 7%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 13 February 2019.
All research outputs
#3,973,148
of 13,361,190 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#1,610
of 3,369 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#101,593
of 269,283 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,361,190 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,369 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 269,283 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them