Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25512817›Full record

Trial reportKorean journal of urology2014

Does preoperative urodynamic testing improve surgical outcomes in patients undergoing the transobturator tape procedure for stress urinary incontinence? A prospective randomized trial.

Abhinav Agarwal, Sudheer Rathi, Pranab Patnaik, Dipak Shaw, Madhu Jain, Sameer Trivedi, Udai Shankar Dwivedi

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Korean journal of urology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Observational
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

7 authors.

Abhinav AgarwalDepartment of Urology, Institute of Medical Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, India.
Sudheer RathiDepartment of Urology, Institute of Medical Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, India.
Pranab PatnaikDepartment of Urology, Institute of Medical Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, India.
Dipak ShawDepartment of Urology, Institute of Medical Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, India.
Madhu JainDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Institute of Medical Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, India.
Sameer TrivediDepartment of Urology, Institute of Medical Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, India.
Udai Shankar DwivediDepartment of Urology, Institute of Medical Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeUrodynamic studies are commonly performed as part of the preoperative work-up of patients undergoing surgery for stress urinary incontinence (SUI). We aimed to assess the extent to which these urodynamic parameters influence patient selection and postoperative outcomes. MATERIALS AND

methodsPatients presenting with SUI were randomly assigned to two groups: one undergoing office evaluation only and the other with a preoperative urodynamic work-up. Patients with unfavorable urodynamic parameters (detrusor overactivity [DO] and/or Valsalva leak point pressure [VLPP]<60 cm H2O and/or maximum urethral closure pressure [MUCP]<20 cm H2O) were excluded from the urodynamic testing group. All patients in both groups underwent the transobturator midurethral sling procedure. Evaluation for treatment success (reductions in urogenital distress inventory and incontinence impact questionnaire scoring along with absent positive stress test) was done at 6 months and 1 year postoperatively.

resultsA total of 72 patients were evaluated. After 12 patients with any one or more of the abnormal urodynamic parameters were excluded, 30 patients were finally recruited in each of the "urodynamic testing" and "office evaluation only" groups. At both the 6- and the 12-month follow-ups, treatment outcomes (reduction in scores and positive provocative stress test) were significantly better in the urodynamic testing group than in the office evaluation only group (p-values significant for all outcomes).

conclusionsOur findings showed statistically significantly better treatment outcomes in the urodynamic group (after excluding those with poor prognostic indicators such as DO, low VLPP, and MUCP) than in the office evaluation only group. We recommend exploiting the prognostic value of these urodynamic parameters for patient counseling and treatment decisions.

Indexed as

Suburethral SlingsAdultFemaleHumansMiddle AgedPatient SelectionPreoperative CarePrognosisProspective StudiesTreatment OutcomeUrinary Incontinence, StressUrodynamicsUrinary incontinenceUrodynamics

Identifiers

PMID25512817
PMCPMC4265717

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.