Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22269989›Full record

ReviewDer Urologe. Ausg. A2012

[The relevance of catheterization in neurourology].

R Böthig, H Burgdörfer

Abstract readEnglish AbstractReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Der Urologe. Ausg. A, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 28% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

R BöthigAbteilung Neuro-Urologie, Querschnittgelähmtenzentrum, Berufsgenossenschaftliches Unfallkrankenhaus Hamburg, Bergedorfer Straße 10, 21033 Hamburg, Deutschland. r.boethig@buk-hamburg.de
H Burgdörfer
BG Klinikum Hamburg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Together with comprehension and therapy of neurogenic failure of the storage function of the urinary bladder, intermittent catheterization as a pressure-free voiding method without residual urine, represents a major principle of therapy in lower urinary tract dysfunction. Aseptic intermittent catheterization is recommended in Germany and Europe and seems to be acceptable even in long-term application with low complication rates. It is a precondition that patients are seen for clinical and urodynamic reevaluation at risk-adapted time intervals. The major focus is on early recognition and avoidance of threatening complications. The most important preventive measures are the motivation and compliance of the well-educated patient and the use of careful catheterization techniques with individually optimized catheters.Although aseptic intermittent catheterization has been used effectively for many years there is still a lack of randomized controlled studies for some important questions of details and an optimal catheter has still to be defined. Furthermore, valid conclusions based on well-conducted studies on the self-estimated quality of life of patients with intermittent catheterization, especially those with catheterization by attendant, are urgently needed. Intermittent catheterization is never a ready-made solution but always an individually tailored treatment for patients with lower urinary tract dysfunction.

Indexed as

Urinary CatheterizationGuideline AdherenceHumansLong-Term CareLower Urinary Tract SymptomsMotivationPatient ComplianceQuality of LifeSpinal Cord InjuriesUrinary Bladder, NeurogenicUrodynamics

Identifiers

PMID22269989
OpenAlexW1269970

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.