Reply to 'Polypropylene mesh degradation and systemic disease: biological plausibility is not clinical evidence'.

Farr NTH, Achenbach P, Sievert KD

Open source

DOI
10.1038/s41585-026-01159-2
Published
2026 Jun 2
Container
Nature reviews. Urology
Publisher
Not recorded
Open access
unknown

Credibility signals

limited evidence Score 43/100 under policy 1.0.0. This is a metadata assessment, not a judgment of the paper's conclusions.

Show all credibility signals

Cite this work

BibTeX

@article{allodium:10.1038/s41585-026-01159-2,
  title = {Reply to 'Polypropylene mesh degradation and systemic disease: biological plausibility is not clinical evidence'.},
  author = {Farr NTH and Achenbach P and Sievert KD},
  year = {2026},
  journal = {Nature reviews. Urology},
  doi = {10.1038/s41585-026-01159-2},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.1038/s41585-026-01159-2}
}

RIS

TY  - JOUR
TI  - Reply to 'Polypropylene mesh degradation and systemic disease: biological plausibility is not clinical evidence'.
AU  - Farr NTH
AU  - Achenbach P
AU  - Sievert KD
PY  - 2026
JO  - Nature reviews. Urology
DO  - 10.1038/s41585-026-01159-2
UR  - https://doi.org/10.1038/s41585-026-01159-2
ER  - 

APA

NTH, F., P, A., & KD, S. (2026). Reply to 'Polypropylene mesh degradation and systemic disease: biological plausibility is not clinical evidence'.. Nature reviews. Urology. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41585-026-01159-2

Source records