Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29569211›Full record

ReviewInternational urology and nephrology2018

Recommendations for urological follow-up of patients with neurogenic bladder secondary to spinal cord injury.

Mikolaj Przydacz, Piotr Chlosta, Jacques Corcos

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in International urology and nephrology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Letter to the editor.International urology and nephrology · 2018
    Article
  18. Response to the Letter to the editor.International urology and nephrology · 2018
    Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Mikolaj PrzydaczDepartment of Urology, Jewish General Hospital, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.
Piotr ChlostaDepartment of Urology, Jagiellonian University, Medical College, Kraków, Poland.
Jacques CorcosDepartment of Urology, Jewish General Hospital, McGill University, Montreal, Canada. jcorcos@uro.jgh.mcgill.ca.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo review currently available guidelines and recommendations regarding urological follow-up of patients after spinal cord injury (SCI) and present an evidence-based summary to support clinicians in their clinical practice.

methodsMaximum data were collected according to different methods, including searches with multiple and specific keywords, reference checks, gray literature searches (congress reports, working papers, statement documents), and browsing-related Web site access. Obtained data were analyzed with the modified version of the Oxford grading system for recommendations using levels of evidence (LE) and grades of recommendation (GR).

resultsDifferent surveillance strategies exist, but there is no consensus among authors and organizations. As a result, practice patterns vary around the world. The present review indicates that proper urological follow-up of SCI patients should consist of medical history (LE 1-4, GR B-C), clinical examination (LE 4, GR C), renal laboratory tests (LE 1-3, GR B), imaging surveillance of the upper urinary tract (LE 1-3, GR A-B), urodynamic study (LE 2-4, GR B-C), and cystoscopy/cytology (LE 1-4, GR D). Clinicians agree that SCI patients should be followed up regularly with an individually tailored approach. A 1-year follow-up schedule seems reasonable in SCI patients without additional risk factors of renal deterioration (LE 3-4, GR C). In those who manifest risk factors, report changes in bladder behavior, or present with already developed complications of neurogenic bladder dysfunction, follow-up plans should be modified with more frequent checkups (LE 4, GR C). Urodynamic study should be repeated and considered as a routine monitoring strategy.

conclusionIndividuals with neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction are at increased risk of multiple complications. Nevertheless, proper follow-up after SCI improves the prognosis for these patients and their quality of life.

Indexed as

AftercareCystoscopyHumansPractice Guidelines as TopicSpinal Cord InjuriesUrinary Bladder, NeurogenicUrologyFollow-upMonitoringNeurogenic bladderNeurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunctionSpinal cord injury

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.