ArticleThe Canadian journal of urology2020
Urodynamics less likely to change diagnosis and management in uncomplicated overactive bladder.
Article in The Canadian journal of urology, 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- The importance of multimodal diagnostic methods for therapeutic decision making for overactive bladder in women.Medicine and pharmacy reports · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionGiven the invasive nature of urodynamics and its unclear impact on altering patient management, we aimed to determine whether performing a urodynamic study (UDS) resulted in a change in either patient diagnosis or treatment offered in women with uncomplicated urinary incontinence. MATERIALS AND
methodsA retrospective review was performed of all female patients who underwent UDS for urinary incontinence at our practice between January 2014 and 2017. Patients with neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction, incomplete emptying, urinary retention, or prior anti-incontinence surgery were excluded. We compared the ICD-10 diagnosis and primary treatment offered in the absence of UDS to their post-UDS diagnosis and recommended therapy. Descriptive statistics, chi-squared, and multivariable analyses were performed.
resultsA total of 141 patient charts were analyzed. The indications for UDS were mixed urinary incontinence (MUI) (45.3%), stress urinary incontinence (SUI) (29.1%), and overactive bladder (OAB) (25.5%). A change in diagnosis following UDS was seen in 40.4% of the entire cohort including 53.1% of patients with MUI and 48.8% of those with SUI compared to 8.3% of those with OAB. A change in treatment was seen in 32.6% of patients including 54.9% with MUI, 41.7% with SUI, and 10% with OAB. When compared to patients with SUI on adjusted multivariate logistic regression, those with OAB were less likely to have a change in either diagnosis (OR 0.06 (0.01-0.31)) or management (OR 0.15 (0.04-0.62)).
conclusionsDiagnosis and management are unlikely to change after UDS in patients presenting with uncomplicated OAB. Conversely, UDS provided important diagnostic information that often changed management in those presenting with MUI and SUI. Our results suggest that UDS may be omitted in patients with uncomplicated refractory OAB in favor of earlier initiation of third line therapies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32544048W3034672424What 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.