ArticlePloS one2015
Trends and Patterns of Urodynamic Studies in U.S. Males, 2000-2012.
Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Transperineal 3D vector magnetic resonance elastography of the prostate is feasible in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia and lower urinary tract symptoms.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Article
- Outcomes following intradetrusor onabotulinumtoxinA injections and sacral neuromodulation in older men.BJUI compass · 2026Article
- [Urodynamics in Germany: Indications and Application in Urological Hospital and Practice Settings].Urologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2025Article
- 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
- 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 evaluate trends in urodynamic procedures in the U.S. males from 2000-2012 and determine if a 2010 decline in reimbursement was associated with decreased utilization. SUBJECTS AND
methodsWe analyzed 2000-2012 administrative healthcare claims from Truven Health's Marketscan Database and evaluated males ≥18 years of age. We identified cystometrograms and any concurrent procedures using procedure billing codes. Covariates included age, year of cystometrogram, region and associated diagnosis codes. We estimated standardized cystometrogram utilization rates per 10,000 person-years (PY). We used age, region, and calendar year adjusted Poisson regression models to estimate the independent effect of calendar year and region.
resultsDuring 127,558,186 PY of observation, we identified 153,168 cystometrograms for an overall utilization rate of 12.0 per 10,000 PY (95% CI 11.9-12.1). Cystometrogram utilization increased with age, peaking at age 85 with a rate of 77.7 per 10,000 PY (95% CI 74.7-80.7). Adjusted cystometrogram utilization rate ratios show that compared to a referent of 2000-2004, utilization was significantly higher in each year 2005 to 2011 among all patients and in 2012 among patients ≥ 65. Standardized utilization rates peaked in 2008 at 12.4 per 10,000 PY (95% CI 12.2-12.6), remained elevated until 2010, then decreased slightly in 2011 and substantially in 2012 to 8.5 per 10,000 PY (95% CI 8.4-8.7).
conclusionsUtilization of urodynamic procedures increased until 2010 and decreased thereafter. Utilization was greatest among men older than 65.
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.