ArticleInternational neurourology journal2018
Intermittent Self-catheterization in Older Adults: Predictors of Success for Technique Learning.
Article in International neurourology journal, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Urogenital dysfunction in neurological diseases.Nature reviews. Neurology · 2026Review
- Decision-Making Process of Healthcare Providers Regarding Catheterization Method: A Nationwide Survey Study.Neurourology and urodynamics · 2026Article
- Difficulties in Manipulating the Female Artificial Urinary Sphincter Pump: Prevalence and Management.International neurourology journal · 2024Article
- Internal and External Barriers to Bladder Management in Persons with Neurologic Disease Performing Intermittent Catheterization.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Review
- A Multicenter, Open-Label, Observational Study Evaluating the Quality of Life After Using a Hydrophilic-Coated Catheter (SpeediCath) With Self-Intermittent Catheterization.International neurourology journal · 2022Article
- A guide for urogynecologic patient care utilizing telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic: review of existing evidence.International urogynecology journal · 2020Review
- Analysis of measurement electrode location in bladder urine monitoring using electrical impedance.Biomedical engineering online · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe main goal of this retrospective study is to explore the predictors of success in learning clean intermittent self-catheterization (CISC) in patients over 65 years of age. The secondary goal is to assess whether in this population, the risk of failure to perform CISC is greater, compared with patients under 65 with similar pathologies.
methodsAll patients older than 65 consulting between January 2011 and January 2016 for learning CISC were included. A control population younger than 65 matching with sex, body mass index, and pathology was selected.
resultsOne hundred sixty-nine of the 202 patients (83.7%) over 65 succeeded in learning CISC. Obesity (P<0.05), low pencil and paper test (PP test) (P<0.01) and low functional independence measure (FIM) (P<0.01) scores were risk factors of failure. No significant differences were found with sex or pathology. In multivariate analysis, low PP test perineum access (odds ratio [95% confidence interval], 2.30 [1.32-4.42]), low FIM motor (1.04 [1.01-1.08]), and FIM cognition (1.18 [1.03-1.37]) scores were independent factors of learning failure. Compared to control group, age over 65 was not predictive of failure (P=0.15).
conclusionsOur study shows that success in learning CISC does not depend on age but on difficulties in mobility, access to perineum and probably cognitive disorders.
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.