Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26108731›Full record

ReviewWorld journal of urology2015

Classification of stress urinary incontinence.

Odunayo Kalejaiye, Monika Vij, Marcus John Drake

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in World journal of urology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 55 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Odunayo KalejaiyeBristol Urological Institute, Bristol, UK.
Monika Vij
Marcus John Drake
At Bristol · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe relevant terminology for stress urinary incontinence (SUI) is affected by the context, namely the clinical assessment (the symptom of SUI elicited on history taking and the sign of SUI observed during examination) or diagnostic investigations (urodynamic stress incontinence). In some cases, SUI may only be observed after the reduction in coexistent prolapse (occult SUI). Classifying SUI often relies on distinguishing between intrinsic sphincter deficiency (ISD), and urethral malposition or hypermobility, although this potentially an over-simplification. REVIEW: Classification systems have been derived based on clinical assessment and diagnostic testing, notably videourodynamics. Modern developments in imaging technology may allow other techniques such as ultrasound to offer additional basis for future developments in classification. Other urodynamic approaches include urethral pressure profilometry and Valsalva leak point pressure; these may offer indicators of thresholds below which ISD is more likely to explain SUI, but they are not generally accepted in routine practice.

conclusionsWhile SUI classification is potentially relevant to treatment selection, evidence for influence on management outcome is limited. Generating a high-quality evidence base for treatment selection on these criteria is problematic, particularly due to the range of confounding factors. In practice, the modern practitioner relies on various tools to form an opinion on some key aspects, using the findings to derive a treatment strategy. Accordingly, there remains a need to confirm how a classification of SUI translates into treatment selection and better outcomes.

Indexed as

Disease ManagementHumansUrinary Incontinence, StressUrodynamics

Identifiers

PMID26108731
OpenAlexW2128857673

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.