ArticleSaudi journal of biological sciences2019
Construction and application of urinary system model with functional bladder module.
Article in Saudi journal of biological sciences, 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.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In order to study the construction and application of urinary system model with functional bladder module, bladder model was designed, and appropriate materials was selected to make it, and its performance was studied. The results showed that in the analysis of pressure performance of bladder model, more detrusor instability was found in the model than in the urodynamic test, and there was significant statistical difference (P < 0.01). In the analysis of bladder safety capacity, it was found that the bladder safety capacity in the model was much larger than that measured by urodynamics, and there was significant statistical difference (P < 0.01). In the analysis of detrusor workmanship and contraction rate, it was found that the normal model group was significantly smaller than the obstruction group, and there was significant statistical difference (P < 0.01). Comparing the detrusor contraction rate of the two groups, it was found that the normal group and the obstruction group had significant difference at t3, and there was no statistical difference between the other two groups. Therefore, through this study, it is found that the understanding of urinary system can be enhanced by building bladder model, and the basic operating skills of medical staff can be improved more easily by using bladder model, which achieves the expected results of the experiment. Although some shortcomings have been found in the course of the study, it still provides experimental reference for the clinical study of bladder in the future.
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.