Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30187093›Full record

ReviewInternational urogynecology journal2019

Methods of assessing and recording bladder sensation: a review of the literature.

Hayser Medina Lucena, Douglas G Tincello

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International urogynecology journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Hayser Medina LucenaDepartment of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Centre for Medicine, University Road, Leicester, Leicestershire, LE1 7RH, UK. hmlucena@doctors.org.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4637-7279
Douglas G TincelloDepartment of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Centre for Medicine, University Road, Leicester, Leicestershire, LE1 7RH, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introduction and hypothesisThe objective was to review different methods that have been used to assess bladder sensation and to provide an overview of the accuracy and objectivity of the measurement of the subjective perception of the bladder.

methodsThe MEDLINE and PubMed databases were searched to identify articles. References from those articles were also searched. Terms used for the search were: urinary bladder, sensation, cystometry, urodynamics, urinary incontinence and focus group. Eight hundred and fifty abstracts were identified from databases, and 12 from other sources. Twenty-two duplicate articles were removed. Irrelevant articles were excluded after reading their titles. Fifty-four articles were eligible, but 17 were excluded after reading the full text, leaving 37 articles where assessment of bladder sensation was the main aim.

resultsSix different methods of measuring bladder sensation have been described in the literature. Although the most frequently used was cystometry, this is an invasive tool and does not reproduce bladder behaviour during daily life because it records bladder sensation as episodic events. The visual analogue scale using a forced diuresis protocol seemed to be an excellent tool. It was non-invasive and evaluated bladder sensation continuously, from an empty to a full bladder.

conclusionsIn some of the studies, the samples were too small to draw any significant conclusions. There were also conflicting data on which tool was the most accurate, especially as each method of evaluating bladder sensation may influence the way it is described by participants.

Indexed as

Diagnostic Techniques, UrologicalSensationUrinationHumansUrinary BladderFocus groupsHumansUrinary bladderUrinary incontinenceUrodynamics

Identifiers

PMID30187093
PMCPMC6510803

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.