181 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24035322)
1. Cost-effectiveness analysis of the surgical treatment of female urinary incontinence using slings and meshes.
Montesino-Semper MF; Jimenez-Calvo JM; Cabases JM; Sanchez-Iriso E; Hualde-Alfaro A; García-García D
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol; 2013 Nov; 171(1):180-6. PubMed ID: 24035322
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. To sling or not to sling at time of abdominal sacrocolpopexy: a cost-effectiveness analysis.
Richardson ML; Elliott CS; Shaw JG; Comiter CV; Chen B; Sokol ER
J Urol; 2013 Oct; 190(4):1306-12. PubMed ID: 23524201
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Is Burch colposuspension ever cost-effective compared with tension-free vaginal tape for stress incontinence?
Wu JM; Visco AG; Weidner AC; Myers ER
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2007 Jul; 197(1):62.e1-5. PubMed ID: 17618760
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Cost-effectiveness of involving nurse specialists for adult patients with urinary incontinence in primary care compared to care-as-usual: an economic evaluation alongside a pragmatic randomized controlled trial.
Albers-Heitner CP; Joore MA; Winkens RA; Lagro-Janssen AL; Severens JL; Berghmans LC
Neurourol Urodyn; 2012 Apr; 31(4):526-34. PubMed ID: 22275126
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Trans-obturator tape compared with tension-free vaginal tape in the surgical treatment of stress urinary incontinence: a cost utility analysis.
Lier D; Ross S; Tang S; Robert M; Jacobs P;
BJOG; 2011 Apr; 118(5):550-6. PubMed ID: 21291510
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. A cost-effectiveness analysis of conservative versus surgical management for the initial treatment of stress urinary incontinence.
Richardson ML; Sokol ER
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2014 Nov; 211(5):565.e1-6. PubMed ID: 25019485
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. A cost-utility analysis of tension-free vaginal tape versus colposuspension for primary urodynamic stress incontinence.
Manca A; Sculpher MJ; Ward K; Hilton P
BJOG; 2003 Mar; 110(3):255-62. PubMed ID: 12628263
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Cost-effectiveness of behavioral and pelvic floor muscle therapy combined with midurethral sling surgery vs surgery alone among women with mixed urinary incontinence: results of the Effects of Surgical Treatment Enhanced With Exercise for Mixed Urinary Incontinence randomized trial.
Harvie HS; Sung VW; Neuwahl SJ; Honeycutt AA; Meyer I; Chermansky CJ; Menefee S; Hendrickson WK; Dunivan GC; Mazloomdoost D; Bass SJ; Gantz MG;
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2021 Dec; 225(6):651.e1-651.e26. PubMed ID: 34242627
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Cost-effectiveness of urethral bulking polydimethylsiloxane-Urolastic® compared with mid-urethral sling surgery for stress urinary incontinence: A two-arm cohort study.
Casteleijn FM; de Vries AM; Tu LM; Heesakkers JPFA; Latul Y; Kowalik CR; van Eijndhoven HWF; van Eekelen R; Roovers JWR
BJOG; 2023 May; 130(6):674-683. PubMed ID: 36660885
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Cost-effectiveness analysis of tension-free vaginal tape vs burch colposuspension for female stress urinary incontinence in the USA.
Laudano MA; Seklehner S; Chughtai B; Lee U; Tyagi R; Kavaler E; Te AE; Kaplan SA; Lee RK
BJU Int; 2013 Jul; 112(2):E151-8. PubMed ID: 23773373
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. A cost-effectiveness analysis of tension-free vaginal tape versus laparoscopic mesh colposuspension for primary female stress incontinence.
Valpas A; Rissanen P; Kujansuu E; Nilsson CG
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand; 2006; 85(12):1485-90. PubMed ID: 17260226
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Cost-effectiveness analysis of open colposuspension versus laparoscopic colposuspension in the treatment of urodynamic stress incontinence.
Dumville JC; Manca A; Kitchener HC; Smith AR; Nelson L; Torgerson DJ;
BJOG; 2006 Sep; 113(9):1014-22. PubMed ID: 16956333
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. The cost of urogynaecological treatments: which are more cost-effective?
Foote AJ; Moore KH
Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol; 2007 Jun; 47(3):240-6. PubMed ID: 17550494
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Cost utility analysis of urethral bulking agents versus midurethral sling in stress urinary incontinence.
Kunkle CM; Hallock JL; Hu X; Blomquist J; Thung SF; Werner EF
Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg; 2015; 21(3):154-9. PubMed ID: 25730435
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. A cost-effectiveness analysis of retropubic midurethral sling versus transobturator midurethral sling for female stress urinary incontinence.
Seklehner S; Laudano MA; Te AE; Kaplan SA; Chughtai B; Lee RK
Neurourol Urodyn; 2014 Nov; 33(8):1186-92. PubMed ID: 23946119
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Cost utility of the treatment of stress urinary incontinence.
Von Bargen E; Patterson D
Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg; 2015; 21(3):150-3. PubMed ID: 25679355
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Comparison of an adjustable anchored single-incision mini-sling, Ajust(®) , with a standard mid-urethral sling, TVT-O(TM) : a health economic evaluation.
Boyers D; Kilonzo M; Mostafa A; Abdel-Fattah M
BJU Int; 2013 Dec; 112(8):1169-77. PubMed ID: 24053310
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Suburethral slingplasty using a self-fashioned Gynemesh for treating urinary incontinence and anterior vaginal wall prolapse.
Su CF; Ng SC; Tsui KP; Chen GD; Tsai HJ
Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol; 2009 Mar; 48(1):53-9. PubMed ID: 19346193
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. [Analysis of the results of urinary incontinence treatment in women using free suburethral synthetic sling: the experience of 1000 operations].
Kasian GR; Gvozdev MIu; Godunov BN; Prokopovich MA; Pushkar' DIu
Urologiia; 2013; (4):5-11. PubMed ID: 24159756
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Open retropubic colposuspension for urinary incontinence in women: a short version Cochrane review.
Lapitan MC; Cody JD; Grant A
Neurourol Urodyn; 2009; 28(6):472-80. PubMed ID: 19591206
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
