Trial reportFemale pelvic medicine & reconstructive surgery2022
Community-based Versus Traditional Research Among Older Minority Women With Urinary Incontinence.
Trial report in Female pelvic medicine & reconstructive surgery, 2022. 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.
- Comparison of Urinary Incontinence in Older White and Black Women: A Pilot Study.International journal of nursing and health care research · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this study was to evaluate research retention of older minority women with urinary incontinence (UI) using a community-based participatory research (CBPR) versus a traditional research approach.
methodsAn ancillary prospective study was conducted within an ongoing pilot randomized clinical trial to treat UI. Participants were recruited using CBPR in collaboration with a local community versus a traditional research approach at an academic center. Inclusion criteria were women 65 years and older and symptomatic UI. The primary outcome was the randomization rate defined as the proportion of women randomized into the randomized clinical trial out of screened participants. Screening and consent rates were also evaluated. Pearson χ2, Fisher exact, and t tests were used. The effect of CBPR on research retention rates was expressed as odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
resultsThere were 10 and 88 women screened in the CBPR and traditional research groups, respectively. The CBPR participants were Hispanic (n = 10, 100%) and older (78.4 ± 8.3 years; P < 0.01). Most of the traditional research participants were non-Hispanic Black (n = 55, 62.5%) and younger (71.0 ± 4.9 years). The CBPR group had higher rates of screening (76.9% vs 40.6%; P = 0.01), consent (80% vs 44.3%; P = 0.045), and randomization (50.0% vs 14.8%; P < 0.01) compared with the traditional research group. Community-based participatory research increased the odds of research retention during screening (OR, 4.9; 95% CI, 1.3-18.2), consent (OR, 5.0; 95% CI, 1.0-25.0), and randomization (OR, 5.8; 95% CI, 1.5-22.7).
conclusionCompared with traditional research, CBPR yielded higher research retention among older minority women with UI in a clinical study.
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.