ReviewInternational urogynecology journal2015
Clinical risk factors and urodynamic predictors prior to surgical treatment for stress urinary incontinence: a narrative review.
Review in International urogynecology journal, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Developing a Risk-Adjustment Model for Stress Urinary Incontinence Procedures Using Australasian Pelvic Floor Procedure Registry Data.International urogynecology journal · 2026Article
- Effects of pelvic floor electrical stimulation with an implantable device at different frequencies on stress urinary incontinence in rats.European journal of medical research · 2025Article
- Innovations in Stress Urinary Incontinence: A Narrative Review.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Review
- Role of urodynamics in stress urinary incontinence: A critical appraisal.Journal of mid-life healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisKnowledge about clinical risk factors and the value of urodynamic testing is important to optimize treatment strategy and secure true informed consent.
methodsWe reviewed the relevant literature to clarify the evidence regarding clinical risk factors and the predictive value of urodynamic testing in patients with urinary incontinence, where surgery is considered. Because of the paucity of evidence based on randomized controlled trials, we conducted a narrative review of the published literature.
resultsClinical risk factors in terms of mixed urinary incontinence, previous incontinence surgery, body mass index (BMI) ≥ 35, age ≥ 75, and presence of diabetes mellitus were significantly related to decreased outcome of incontinence surgery. Furthermore, noninvasive and invasive urodynamic parameters indicating detrusor overactivity, voiding difficulties, low urethral pressure, and bladder-neck immobility were related to poorer outcome of surgery.
conclusionsThis study summarized the available evidence regarding preoperative clinical risk factors and urodynamic parameters indicating decreased or adverse outcome of surgery, and this report also provides clinical recommendations.
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.