ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2017
Development of a core set of outcome measures for OAB treatment.
Article in International urogynecology journal, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- A core outcome measurement set for hyperemesis gravidarum research: a consensus study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Pooled it
- Minimally invasive treatments for lower urinary tract symptoms in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia: a network meta-analysis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Systematic review of international Delphi surveys for core outcome set development: representation of international patients.BMJ open · 2020Pooled it
- Neuromodulation for Lower Urinary Tract Dysfunction: Mechanisms, Modalities, and Patient Selection.International urogynecology journal · 2026Review
- Patient Reported Outcomes and Complications of Stress Incontinence Surgery: Effect of Patient Characteristics.International urogynecology journal · 2026Article
- Article
- Balancing adaptability and standardisation: insights from 27 routinely implemented ICHOM standard sets.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- Common patient-reported outcomes across ICHOM Standard Sets: the potential contribution of PROMIS®.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2021Article
- Newer Minimally Invasive Treatment Modalities to Treat Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Attributed to Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia.European urology open science · 2021Review
- Posterior tibial nerve stimulation for overactive bladder-techniques and efficacy.International urogynecology journal · 2020Article
- The future of clinical trials in urological oncology.Nature reviews. Urology · 2019Review
- International Consortium for Health Outcome Measurement Set of Outcomes That Matter to People Living With Inflammatory Arthritis: Consensus From an International Working Group.Arthritis care & research · 2019Article
- Development of quality outcome indicators to improve the quality of urinary and faecal continence care.International urogynecology journal · 2019Article
- Big data: why ignorance is no longer acceptable.International urogynecology journal · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisStandardized measures enable the comparison of outcomes across providers and treatments giving valuable information for improving care quality and efficacy. The aim of this project was to define a minimum standard set of outcome measures and case-mix factors for evaluating the care of patients with overactive bladder (OAB).
methodsThe International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) convened an international working group (WG) of leading clinicians and patients to engage in a structured method for developing a core outcome set. Consensus was determined by a modified Delphi process, and discussions were supported by both literature review and patient input.
resultsThe standard set measures outcomes of care for adults seeking treatment for OAB, excluding residents of long-term care facilities. The WG focused on treatment outcomes identified as most important key outcome domains to patients: symptom burden and bother, physical functioning, emotional health, impact of symptoms and treatment on quality of life, and success of treatment. Demographic information and case-mix factors that may affect these outcomes were also included.
conclusionsThe standardized outcome set for evaluating clinical care is appropriate for use by all health providers caring for patients with OAB, regardless of specialty or geographic location, and provides key data for quality improvement activities and research.
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.