Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15340757›Full record

ReviewWorld journal of urology2004

Bowel function after urinary diversion.

Antony C P Riddick, William H Turner, Robert D Mills

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in World journal of urology, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 32% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Antony C P RiddickDepartment of Urology, Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital, Norwich NR4 7UY, UK.
William H Turner
Robert D Mills
Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital · GBCambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Removal of bowel segments for the purposes of urinary diversion may have a significant effect on bowel function. The remaining bowel may not be able to fulfill its normal role, resulting in not only malabsorption syndromes, but also dysfunctional defecation. Provided, however, care is taken in selecting patients and the bowel segments for such procedures and follow-up is vigilant, complications should be minimal. There appears to be a significant risk of developing symptoms of increased bowel frequency following urinary diversion and reconstruction. Patients need to be counselled regarding this prior to surgery, however, further data needs to be collected to accurately quantify the risk and the effect it has on quality of life.

Indexed as

DefecationHumansIntestinal AbsorptionIntestinesMalabsorption SyndromesStomachUrinary Diversion

Identifiers

PMID15340757
OpenAlexW1971360303

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.