Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26579239›Full record

ReviewArab journal of urology2013

Can evidence-based medicine change toilet-training practice?

Hsi-Yang Wu

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Arab journal of urology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 94% 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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Hsi-Yang WuDepartment of Urology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.
Stanford University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo assess the evidence showing that a specific method of toilet training (TT) is more effective than others, as any method of TT recommended by a physician faces obstacles because parents rarely request advice on TT from physicians, and TT practices vary tremendously across cultures and socioeconomic levels.

methodsReports on the natural course of urinary incontinence in children and different methods of TT, published in English between 1946 and 2012, were reviewed. Specifically investigated were historical recommendations on TT, the prevalence of urinary incontinence during childhood, the outcome of TT methods, and the effect of culture and socioeconomic status on the choice of TT method and timing.

resultsTT now occurs at later ages than it did previously. This progression reflects changing ideas about normal childhood physiology and psychology. The prevalence of urinary incontinence in European countries progressively decreased in children aged between 6-7 years and 16-17 years old. TT methods change with increasing socioeconomic levels to 'child-centred' techniques applied at older ages, but the prevalence of urinary incontinence after 'parent-centred' techniques of TT at younger ages has not been studied. There is currently no evidence that a specific timing or method of TT is more effective or prevents voiding dysfunction.

conclusionsFollow-up studies of urinary continence in children toilet trained at 6-12 months of age might provide evidence for whether a given method or timing of TT is beneficial to prevent voiding dysfunction. The recommendations of physicians might be more readily adopted if they fit culturally accepted ideas of good parenting techniques.

Indexed as

PrevalenceToilet trainingTT, toilet trainingUrinary incontinence

Identifiers

PMID26579239
PMCPMC4442913
OpenAlexW1967480833

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.