ReviewInternational urogynecology journal2019
Methods of assessing and recording bladder sensation: a review of the literature.
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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Systematic Evaluation of Lower Urinary Tract Sensations to Improve Management of LUTS: ICI-RS 2024.Neurourology and urodynamics · 2025Review
- Influence of visual and auditory cues about bladder volume on real-time filling sensation in healthy volunteers.American journal of clinical and experimental urology · 2022Article
- Effects of behavioural therapy versus interferential current on bladder dysfunction in multiple sclerosis patients; a randomised clinical study.Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.