Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34390120›Full record

SynthesisBJU international2022

Lower urinary tract electrical sensory assessment: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Stéphanie van der Lely, Melanie R Schmidhalter, Stephanie C Knüpfer, Andrea M Sartori, Marc P Schneider, Stephanie A Stalder, Thomas M Kessler, Martina D Liechti, Ulrich Mehnert

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BJU international, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Urogenital dysfunction in neurological diseases.Nature reviews. Neurology · 2026
    Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.

Stéphanie van der LelyDepartment of Neuro-Urology, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-2688-9042
Melanie R SchmidhalterDepartment of Neuro-Urology, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland.
Stephanie C KnüpferDepartment of Neuro-Urology, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-2914-1451
Andrea M SartoriDepartment of Neuro-Urology, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-9571-0288
Marc P SchneiderDepartment of Neuro-Urology, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland.
Stephanie A StalderDepartment of Neuro-Urology, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-7914-8264
Thomas M KesslerDepartment of Neuro-Urology, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-1991-5919
Martina D LiechtiDepartment of Neuro-Urology, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-3024-0975
Ulrich MehnertDepartment of Neuro-Urology, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0001-7963-8477
University of Zurich · CHBeth Israel Deaconess Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo summarize the current literature on lower urinary tract electrical sensory assessment (LUTESA), with regard to current perception thresholds (CPTs) and sensory evoked potentials (SEPs), and to discuss the applied methods in terms of technical aspects, confounding factors, and potential for lower urinary tract (LUT) diagnostics.

methodsThe review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Medline (PubMed), Embase and Scopus were searched on 13 October 2020. Meta-analyses were performed and methodological qualities of the included studies were defined by assessing risk of bias (RoB) as well as confounding.

resultsAfter screening 9925 articles, 80 studies (five randomized controlled trials [RCTs] and 75 non-RCTs) were included, comprising a total of 3732 patients and 692 healthy subjects (HS). Of these studies, 61 investigated CPTs exclusively and 19 reported on SEPs, with or without corresponding CPTs. The recording of LUTCPTs and SEPs was shown to represent a safe and reliable assessment of LUT afferent nerve function in HS and patients. LUTESA demonstrated significant differences in LUT sensitivity between HS and neurological patients, as well as after interventions such as pelvic surgery or drug treatments. Pooled analyses showed that several stimulation variables (e.g. stimulation frequency, location) as well as patient characteristics might affect the main outcome measures of LUTESA (CPTs, SEP latencies, peak-to-peak amplitudes, responder rate). RoB and confounding was high in most studies.

conclusionsPreliminary data show that CPT and SEP recordings are valuable tools to more objectively assess LUT afferent nerve function. LUTESA complements already established diagnostics such as urodynamics, allowing a more comprehensive patient evaluation. The high RoB and confounding rate was related to inconsistency and inaccuracy in reporting rather than the technique itself. LUTESA standardization and well-designed RCTs are crucial to implement LUTESA as a clinical assessment tool.

Indexed as

Urinary BladderUrodynamicsHealthy VolunteersHumansafferent fibresafferent pathwayscurrent perception thresholdlower urinary tractneuro-urologysensationsensory assessmentsensory evoked potentialurethraurinary bladder

Identifiers

PMID34390120
PMCPMC9545760
OpenAlexW3187448541

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.