ArticleInternational braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology
False-negative finding in urodynamic study for the chief complaint. Does it interfere with the clinical outcomes for the treatment of SUI or OAB syndromes?
Article in International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology. 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.
- Clinical bladder evaluation: A new, cost-effective, clinical method for neurogenic bladder evaluation and rehabilitation.World journal of clinical cases · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeFalse-negative urodynamic findings may mislead or prevent planned treatments due to unmatched findings with the clinical presentation. We hypothesized that the absence of urodynamic demonstration of SUI or OAB on urodynamics would interfere with clinical outcomes. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe prospectively studied 124 women with (94) or without (30) demonstrable SUI after sling operations. Similarly, 64 women with OAB syndrome with (38) or without (26) demonstrable DO were also compared after treatment with anticholinergic agents. Patients were assessed with the UDI-6 and IIQ-7 questionnaires 3 and 6 months after treatment.
resultsOnly 76% of SUI patients demonstrated urine leakage during urodynamics. The UDI-6 score was higher in the demonstrable-SUI and demonstrable-DO groups, while the IIQ-7 score was comparable within the incontinence or urgency/frequency groups. Demonstrable and non-demonstrable SUI-operated patients showed similar outcomes. Patients with urgency syndromes with or without demonstrable DO had a similar rate of improvement with anticholinergic therapy.
conclusionsWomen with clinical complaints of SUI objectively demonstrated on urodynamics presented the same subjective clinical outcome as those with SUI lacking objective demonstration when measured by the UDI-6 and IIQ-7 questionnaires. Similarly, patients with OAB syndrome with or without demonstrable DO had similar clinical improvement when treated with anticholinergics and measured using the same questionnaires.
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.