ArticleNeurourology and urodynamics2020
Can multicentre urodynamic studies provide high quality evidence for the clinical effectiveness of urodynamics? ICI-RS 2019.
Article in Neurourology and urodynamics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Can multicentre urodynamic studies provide high quality evidence for the clinical effectiveness of urodynamics? ICI-RS 2019.Neurourology and urodynamics · 2020Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsLower urinary tract (LUT) function can be investigated by urodynamic studies (UDS) to establish underlying functional abnormalities in the LUT. A multicentre registry could present an opportunity to improve the scientific evidence base for UDS. During the International Consultation on Incontinence Research Society (ICI-RS) meeting in Bristol, United Kingdom 2019, an expert panel discussed the potential of a multicentre urodynamic registry to improve the quality of urodynamic output.
methodsthe potential importance of a multicentre urodynamic registry, parameter inclusion, quality control, and pitfalls during a registry roll-out were reviewed and discussed. RESULTS AND
conclusionsThe clinical utility, evaluation, and effectiveness of UDS remain poorly defined due to a lack of high quality evidence and large study populations. Therefore, the ICI-RS proposes formation of a urodynamic panel for future roll-out of a registry. The inclusion of basic parameters was discussed and the essential parameters were defined as well as the potential pitfalls of a registry roll-out. The discussion and recommendations in this paper form the base for future urodynamic registry development.
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.