ArticleDer Urologe. Ausg. A2018
[Medical quality standards for selected urological aids and devices : Consensus for patients with neurogenic urinary bladder dysfunction].
Article in Der Urologe. Ausg. A, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Management and implementation of intermittent catheterisation in neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction: a clinical practice guideline in Germany - update 3.0.International urology and nephrology · 2026Review
- The Real Daily Need for Incontinence Aids and Appliances in Patients with Neurogenic Bladder Dysfunction in a Community Setting in Germany.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2020Article
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 at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUsing the CE mark of therapeutic appliances is, on its own, not sufficient enough for their appropriate and effective application. In order to treat the patient successfully, not jeopardizing the success of the treatment, medical quality criteria for therapeutic appliances care are necessary to acceptably compensate for a patient's disabilities.
objectivesMedical quality criteria are formulated for the most frequently used urological aids and devices, considering hygienic requirements, international literature and the practical experience of physicians and nurses with regard to the care of patients with neurogenic urinary bladder dysfunction.
methodsAn expert group of urologists, surgeons, rehabilitation physicians and nurses has developed medical quality criteria via a structured consensus procedure. Developing these criteria, the group has taken into account current jurisprudence, the current resource directory of neurourological relevant aids, data from international literature and hygiene requirements.
resultsMedical quality requirements are discussed and defined for selected groups of urological devices (single use catheters, indwelling catheters, external catheters, urine bags, templates and diapers as well as devices for the electrostimulation of nerves).
conclusionThe presented quality requirements offer the possibility to stabilize quality of care with neurourological relevant therapeutic appliances. The catalogue of therapeutic appliances must be urgently updated. Urinal catheters for single use must be classified as an individual product group. Devices for anterior root stimulation and neuromodulation must be included in the resource directory. The incontinence severity classification needs to be reviewed.
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.