International Urogynecology Journal

, Volume 18, Issue 6, pp 599–601

Urogynaecological research: current and future developments

Current Opinion/Update


The massive introduction of new products from device and drug industries together with a scanty device approval process and a growing scepticism about the reliability of drug trials call for new improved strategies in urogynaecological research. Device companies and physicians have a mutual ethical responsibility of contributing to create clinical data based on the framework of trials in surgery before new surgical products are implemented and disseminated. In respect of the patients’ altruism and confidence, which make drug trials possible, the industry and academia have an obligation to conduct and report clinical results in accordance with the highest standards of scientific and ethical integrity.


Urogynaecological research Surgery Drug trials Devices New prosthesis material 


  1. 1.
    Abrams P, Cardozo L, Khoury S, Wein A (2005) Research methodology, vol 1, Chapter 3. 3rd International Consultation on Incontinence. Health Publication Ltd, Plymouth (Incontinence)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Walters MD (2003) The use and misuse of prosthetic materials in reconstructive pelvic surgery: does the evidence support our surgical practice? Int Urogynecol J 14:365–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Petri E, Kölbl H (2004) Eminence, or rather eloquence, or rather economy-based medicine? Int Urogynecol J 15:147–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    McCulloch P, Taylor I, Sasako M, Lovett B, Griffin D (2002) Randomised trials in surgery: problems and possible solution. BMJ 324:1448–1451PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Black N (1996) Why we need observational studies to evaluate the effectiveness of health care. BMJ 312:1215–1218PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lose G, Ostergard DR (1999) Medical technology assessment and surgery for stress incontinence. Int Urogynecol J 10:351–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lilford R, Braunholtz D, Harris J, Gill T (2004) Trials in surgery. Br J Surg 91:6–16PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    De Angelis C, Drazen JM, Frizelle FA et al (2004) Clinical trial registration: a statement from the international committee of medical journal editors. N Engl J Med 351:1250–1251PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Moynihan R (2003) Who pays for the pizza? Redefining the relationships between doctors and drug companies. 1: Entanglement. BMJ 326:1189–1192PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Korn D, Ehringhaus S (2006) Principles for strengthening the integrity of clinical research. PLOS Clin Trials 1(1):e1, May 2006PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lexchin J, Bero LA, Djulbegovic B, Clark O (2003) Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review. BMJ 326:1167–1170PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gøtzsche PC (2005) Uafhængig klinisk interventionsforskning er meget påkrævet. Ugeskr Læger 167:1491–1494PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Herbison P, Hay-Smith J, Ellis K, Moor K (2003) Effectiveness of anticholinergic drugs compared with placebo in the treatment of overactive bladder: systematic review. BMJ 326:841–844PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Landis JR, Koplan S, Swift S, Versi E (2004) Efficacy of antimuscarinic therapy for overactive bladder with varying degrees of incontinence severity. J Urol 171:752–756PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hilton P (2007) Of porcupines and poodles—a joint challenge to industry and the profession. Int Urogynecol J 18(1):3–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dietz HP (2007) Bias in research and conflict of interest: why should we care? Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 18(3):241–243. DOI 10.1007/s00192-006-0236-1 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fontanarosa PB, Flanagin A, DeAngelis CD (2005) Reporting conflicts of interest, financial aspects of research, and role of sponsors in funded studies. JAMA 294:110–111PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ehringhaus S, Korn D (2006) Principles for protecting integrity in the conduct and reporting of clinical trials. AAMC, 1–7 March 2006
  19. 19.
    Martinson BC, Anderson MS, de Vries R (2005) Scientists behaving badly. Nature 435(9):737–738PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Urogynecology Journal 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyGlostrup Municipal HospitalGlostrupDenmark

Personalised recommendations