Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21733166›Full record

Trial reportTrials2011

INVESTIGATE-I (INVasive Evaluation before Surgical Treatment of Incontinence Gives Added Therapeutic Effect?): study protocol for a mixed methods study to assess the feasibility of a future randomised controlled trial of the clinical utility of invasive urodynamic testing.

Megan Murdoch, Elaine McColl, Denise Howel, Mark Deverill, Brian S Buckley, Malcolm Lucas, Christopher R Chapple, Douglas G Tincello, Natalie Armstrong, Cath Brennand and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Trials, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Trial participation as avoidance strategy: a qualitative study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2016
    Article
  7. Urogynecology digest Presented by Aparna Hegde.International urogynecology journal · 2015
    Article
  8. Article
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

13 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Megan MurdochDirectorate of Women's Services, Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Elaine McColl
Denise Howel
Mark Deverill
Brian S Buckley
Malcolm Lucas
Christopher R Chapple
Douglas G Tincello
Natalie Armstrong
Cath Brennand
Jing Shen
Luke Vale
Paul Hilton
Newcastle University · GBRoyal Victoria Infirmary · GBUniversity of Leicester · GBBowel and Cancer Research · GBMorriston Hospital · GBRoyal Hallamshire Hospital · GB

Funding

Department of Health 09/22/136Department of Health HTA/09/22/136
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUrinary incontinence is an important health problem to the individual sufferer and to health services. Stress and stress predominant mixed urinary incontinence are increasingly managed by surgery due to advances in surgical techniques. Despite the lack of evidence for its clinical utility, most clinicians undertake invasive urodynamic testing (IUT) to confirm a functional diagnosis of urodynamic stress incontinence before offering surgery for this condition. IUT is expensive, embarrassing and uncomfortable for women and carries a small risk. Recent systematic reviews have confirmed the lack of high quality evidence of effectiveness.The aim of this pilot study is to test the feasibility of a future definitive randomised control trial that would address whether IUT alters treatment decisions and treatment outcome in these women and would test its clinical and cost effectiveness. METHODS/

designThis is a mixed methods pragmatic multicentre feasibility pilot study with four components:-(a) A multicentre, external pilot randomised trial comparing basic clinical assessment with non-invasive tests and IUT. The outcome measures are rates of recruitment, randomisation and data completion. Data will be used to estimate sample size necessary for the definitive trial.(b) Qualitative interviews of a purposively sampled sub-set of women eligible for the pilot trial will explore willingness to participate, be randomised and their overall trial experience.(c) A national survey of clinicians to determine their views of IUT in this context, the main outcome being their willingness to randomise patients into the definitive trial.(d) Qualitative interviews of a purposively sampled group of these clinicians will explore whether and how they use IUT to inform their decisions. DISCUSSION: The pilot trial will provide evidence of feasibility and acceptability and therefore inform the decision whether to proceed to the definitive trial. Results will inform the design and conduct of the definitive trial and ensure its effectiveness in achieving its research aim. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN71327395 assigned 7th June 2010.

Indexed as

Research DesignUrodynamicsUrologic Surgical ProceduresAttitude of Health PersonnelFeasibility StudiesFemaleHealth Care SurveysHumansPatient SelectionPilot ProjectsPredictive Value of TestsQualitative ResearchQuality-Adjusted Life YearsTreatment OutcomeUnited KingdomUrinary Incontinence

Identifiers

PMID21733166
PMCPMC3152523
OpenAlexW2126497490

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.