Trial reportMedicine2019
A randomized controlled trial of neuromuscular electrical stimulation for chronic urinary retention following traumatic brain injury.
Trial report in Medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) therapy for chronic urinary retention (CUR) following traumatic brain injury (TBI).
methodsThis 2-arm randomized controlled trial (RCT) enrolled 86 eligible patients with CUR following TBI. All included patients were randomly allocated to a treatment group (n = 43) or a sham group (n = 43). The administration of NMES or sham NMES, as intervention, was performed for an 8-week period treatment, and 4-week period follow-up. In addition, all subjects were required to undergo indwelling urinary catheter throughout the study period. The primary outcome was assessed by the post-voiding residual urine volume (PV-VRU). The secondary outcomes were evaluated by the voided volume, maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax), and quality of life, as assessed by Barthel Index (BI) scale. In addition, adverse events were also recorded during the study period. All primary and secondary outcomes were measured at baseline, at the end of 8-week treatment, and 4-week follow-up.
resultsAt the end of 8-week treatment, the patients in the treatment group did not achieve better outcomes in PV-VRU (P = .66), voided volume (P = .59), Qmax (P = .53), and BI scores (P = .67), than patients in the control group. At the end of 4-week follow-up, there were also no significant differences regarding the PV-VRU (P = .42), voided volume (P = .71), Qmax (P = .24), and BI scores (P = .75) between 2 groups. No adverse events occurred in either group.
conclusionsIn summary, the findings of this study showed that NMES therapy may not benefit patients with CUR following TBI.
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.