Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28408338›Full record

ArticleUrology2017

The Value of Urodynamics in an Academic Specialty Referral Practice.

Anne M Suskind, Lindsey Cox, J Quentin Clemens, Ann Oldendorf, John T Stoffel, Bahaa Malaeb, Yongmei Qin, Anne P Cameron

Open access · greenAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Urology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
2.9field-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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Anne M SuskindDepartment of Urology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA. Electronic address: anne.suskind@ucsf.edu.
Lindsey CoxDepartment of Urology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC.
J Quentin ClemensDepartment of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Ann OldendorfDepartment of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
John T StoffelDepartment of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Bahaa MalaebDepartment of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Yongmei QinDepartment of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Anne P CameronDepartment of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
University of Michigan · USMedical University of South Carolina · USUniversity of California, San Francisco · US

Funding

UCSF KURe Career Development ProgramK12DK083021 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI BASKIN, LAURENCE, CARROLL, PETER R · 2008 to 2017
$5.9M
NIDDK NIH HHS K12 DK083021
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo describe and evaluate the use of urodynamics (UDS) studies for all indications in an academic specialty referral urology practice. MATERIALS AND

methodsThis is a prospective questionnaire-based study wherein clinicians completed a pre- and post-UDS questionnaire on each UDS that they ordered for all clinical indications between May 2013 and August 2014. Questions pertained to patient demographics and history, the clinical indication for the UDS, the clinician's pre- and post-UDS clinical impressions, and changes in post-UDS management plans. Pre- and post-UDS diagnoses were compared using the McNemar test.

resultsClinicians evaluated a total of 285 UDS studies during the study period. The average age of study participants was 56.0 (±16.4) years, 59.5% were female, and 29.3% had a neurologic diagnosis. The most common indication for performing UDS was to discern the predominant type of urinary incontinence (stress vs urgency) in patients with mixed incontinence symptoms (38.5%) and to assess the safety of the bladder during filling (38.2%). UDS statistically significantly changed the ordering clinician's clinical impression of the patient's lower urinary tract diagnosis for stress urinary incontinence and for urgency and urgency urinary incontinence (both had P values of <.05). Fluoroscopy was found to be helpful in 29.5% of urodynamic studies, and clinicians reported that UDS changed their treatment plans in 42.5% of the studies, most commonly pertaining to changes related to surgery (35.0%).

conclusionOverall, UDS was a clinically useful tool that altered the clinical impression and treatment plan in a large percentage of carefully selected patients.

Indexed as

Practice Patterns, Physicians'Referral and ConsultationUrodynamicsUrologyAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient SelectionSurveys and QuestionnairesUrination DisordersYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID28408338
PMCPMC5474128
OpenAlexW2606137091

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.