Trial reportInternational urology and nephrology2013
Long-term prospective evaluation of an inpatient voiding reeducation program for lower urinary tract conditions in children.
Trial report in International urology and nephrology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Conservative interventions for treating functional daytime urinary incontinence in children.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeOur aim was to evaluate the efficacy of our treatment program for children with lower urinary tract conditions, developed at the Department of Pediatric Nephrology of the University Children's Hospital in Ljubljana.
methodsSixty-four patients with lower urinary tract conditions were randomly allocated to two groups. Group A received treatment immediately, whereas patients of group B received no treatment for a period of 3 months-the amount of time it takes to complete our program. No child in group B experienced spontaneous regression of their symptoms in the 3-month delay period, while the patients of group A were already being treated and were achieving results. Thus, all the patients of group B then entered the program in exactly the same way as patients of group A.
resultsThe final success rate in both groups did not differ significantly (p = 0.706-1.000) and ranged from 86.2 % for group A and 86.7 to 90 % for group B. Long-term follow-up showed statistically identical success rates (p = 1.000).
conclusionThis prospective controlled study with long-term follow-up (48 months) shows that our treatment program, applied as an inpatient voiding school program, is an effective method, with durable results.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.