ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2013
Radiation exposure during videourodynamics in women.
Article in International urogynecology journal, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Videourodynamics - role, benefits and optimal practice.Nature reviews. Urology · 2025Review
- What do X-ray images of the bladder during video urodynamics show us in patients with spinal cord injury?Spinal cord · 2022Article
- Evaluation of bladder shape using transabdominal ultrasound: Feasibility of a novel approach for the detection of involuntary detrusor contractions.Ultrasound (Leeds, England) · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisOur aim was to calculate the total radiation exposure and the dose absorbed by specific organs during videourodynamics (VUDS) in women.
methodsThis was a retrospective study of consecutive women attending for VUDS in a tertiary referral urodynamics unit. Tests with missing data and those that were terminated during the filling phase of the cystometry were excluded from the study. The VUDS examination was tailored according to the indication for the test and the urodynamic question to be answered. The PCXMC simulation program (version 2.0) was utilised to calculate the effective dose and the dose absorbed by individual organs.
resultsOut of 345 consecutive VUDS, 264 were included in the study. The mean effective dose was 0.34 mSv (SD: 0.15) and the mean fluoroscopic time was 63.15 s (SD: 21.81). Multivariate linear regression analysis of factors affecting the radiation dose showed that BMI (p = 0.009) and fluoroscopy time (p < 0.001) were the only statistically significant factors. The final linear regression model for the estimation of the effective dose was Eff. Dose (mSv) = -0.049 + 0.003 · BMI (kg/m(2)) + 0.005 · fluoroscopy time (s).
conclusionsThis study reveals that women are exposed to relatively small amounts of radiation during VUDS. The use of fluoroscopy only without additional static radiographic images minimises exposure to a level consistent with the "as low as reasonably achievable" radiological principle.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23430076What 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.