ReviewInternational urogynecology journal2022
The influence of intubation on urinary flow parameters in pressure-flow study and its significance for urodynamic diagnosis.
Review in International urogynecology journal, 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.
- A comparative study between EMG uroflowmetry with and without a catheter in children.BMC urology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisTransurethral catheterization in pressure-flow study (PFS) may interfere with the function of the lower urinary tract and produce an incorrect urodynamic diagnosis. We aimed to investigate the influence of a 7F catheter on urinary flow parameters in PFS and its significance for urodynamic diagnosis. Our hypothesis was that intubation causes adverse effects on urinary flow rate and further influences the urodynamic diagnosis.
methodsWe reviewed a urodynamic database of men and women referred for evaluation of lower urinary tract symptoms. The urinary flow parameters of PFS and free flow (FF) were compared. The influence of intubation on urodynamic diagnosis was determined by re-evaluating bladder outlet obstruction (BOO) and detrusor underactivity (DU), with the maximum flow rate of PFS (Qmax.P) being replaced by Qmax of FF (Qmax.F).
resultsWe initially screened 1,791 patients and included 1,144 for the analysis. Overall, PFS had a lower Qmax (p < 0.001), longer flow time (p < 0.001), and a similar voided volume (p > 0.05). However, Qmax.P displayed inconsistent changing directions: Qmax.P decreased in 72.8% of male patients and 83.5% of female patients but increased in 14.7% of male patients and 9.5% female patients. Qmax.P was unchanged in the remaining patients. The urodynamic diagnosis of BOO and DU changed correspondingly in both the decreased group and the increased group when Qmax.P was replaced by Qmax.F.
conclusionsCompared with Qmax.F, the changing directions and magnitude of Qmax.P varied with each individual, which could have a significant impact on urodynamic diagnosis. Thus, when a similar volume is voided in FF and PFS, and Qmax.P differs obviously from Qmax.F, replacing Qmax.P with Qmax.F for evaluating BOO and DU may be a sensible choice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35084512What 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.