ArticleObstetrics and gynecology2015
Trends and patterns of urodynamic studies in U.S. women, 2000-2012.
Article in Obstetrics and gynecology, 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.
- Declining utilization of urodynamic studies in urological care in Germany: time to say goodbye?World journal of urology · 2024Article
- Decreasing Number of Urodynamics in Urological and Gynaecological Clinics Reflects Decreased Importance for Surgical Indications: German Population-Based Data from 2013 to 2019.Urologia internationalis · 2022Article
- National Trend of Uroflowmetry, Urodynamic Study and Cystoscopy Considering the Change in the Population Structure in Korea from 2010 to 2015.Journal of Korean medical science · 2018Article
- Trained and dedicated staff appears to be the main factor in decreasing anxiety and improving overall satisfaction during urodynamic testing: A prospective, randomized trial.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du CanadaArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo estimate utilization rates for cystometrograms and describe trends in urodynamic procedures among U.S. women from 2000 to 2012.
methodsWe analyzed outpatient administrative health care claims for women aged 18 years or older from 2000 to 2012. The database contains deidentified and adjudicated claims from approximately 150 U.S. payers for employees, spouses, and retirees. We identified cystometrograms, which occur during bladder filling and represent a major component of complex urodynamics, and concurrent procedures; we also assessed age, year, region, health care provider specialty, and associated diagnosis codes. We estimated standardized cystometrogram utilization rates per 10,000 person-years and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and used stratified Poisson models to estimate the independent (adjusted) effects of year and region.
resultsDuring 142,928,847 person-years of observation among 57,629,961 eligible women, we identified 561,823 cystometrograms for an overall utilization rate of 39.3 per 10,000 person-years (95% CI 39.2-39.4). Cystometrogram utilization increased with age with a peak at age 76 years (86.6/10,000 person-years, 95% CI 84.5-88.7). Standardized rates were relatively constant from 2000 to 2004 and then increased and peaked in 2009 (43.3/10,000 person-years, 95% CI 43.0-43.7). In 2012, they were substantially lower (27.6/10,000 person-years, 95% CI 27.4-27.9).
conclusionUrodynamic procedures were more commonly performed in women aged 65 years or older. Utilization peaked in 2009 and declined sharply in 2012. Clinically, we need to assess the underlying reasons for these trends (ie, whether they reflect a decrease in urodynamics before stress urinary incontinence surgery) and whether these trends reflect appropriate use of this diagnostic study. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: : II.
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.