Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32427629›Full record

ReviewCurrent opinion in urology2020

Neurostimulation in neurogenic patients.

F M J Martens, K-D Sievert

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current opinion in urology, 2020. 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
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 27% of its field
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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

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

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.

F M J MartensDepartment of Urology, Radboud University Medical Center, The Netherlands.
K-D SievertDepartment of Urology, Klinikum Lippe.
Radboud University Nijmegen · NLVienna General Hospital · AT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewTo provide an overview of available electrical stimulation devices in neurogenic patients with lower urinary tract disease. RECENT

findingsIt is advocated to do more studies in neurogenic patients as results seem promising and useful but most studies did not include neurogenic patients or neurogenic patients were not analyzed or reported separately. Most studies included a small heterogenous neurogenic group with multiple pathophysiologic origin focusing on effect of a treatment instead of results of a treatment in a specific neurogenic group. Neuromodulation or stimulation has the advantage that it acts on different organs, like bladder and bowel, so can treat neurogenic patients, who mostly suffer from multiple organ failure. SUMMARY: Brindley procedure, sacral neuromodulation (SNM) and posterior tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS) are available for a while already. The Brindley procedure (including sacral anterior root stimulation in combination with a rhizotomy of posterior sacral roots) is developed for selected spinal cord injury patient with a complete spinal injury, and has shown results for many years in neurogenic patients. An alternative to the rhizotomy is not established yet. SNM and PTNS are other modalities that are used in nonneurogenic patients, but are not yet indicated and much studied in neurogenic patients.

Indexed as

RhizotomyTibial NerveDenervationElectric StimulationElectric Stimulation TherapyHumansImplantable NeurostimulatorsLower Urinary Tract SymptomsSacrococcygeal RegionSpinal Nerve RootsUrinary BladderUrinary Bladder, Neurogenic

Identifiers

PMID32427629
OpenAlexW3027958787

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.