ArticleTurkish journal of urology2021
Intraurethral lidocaine use during urodynamics in female patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Turkish journal of urology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pain and discomfort may occur in catheterization during a urodynamic examination. A lidocaine gel combined with a water-based lubricant is sometimes used to reduce pain during catheterization. Several studies claimed that intraurethral lidocaine administration could cause inaccurate urodynamic parameters results. However, its definite effects in urodynamics testing on humans are still not clear. We aimed to evaluate the effects of intraurethral lidocaine on pain and urodynamic study parameters in patients undergoing an invasive urodynamic examination. A systematic search adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) protocol was performed in the MEDLINE, PubMed, and ScienceDirect databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The bias of the studies is evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias tool by two independent reviewers. The analyses of continuous outcomes were displayed as mean difference (MD), whereas odds ratio is used to analyze dichotomous data. Heterogeneity between studies is determined using the I2 value. A total of three RCTs out of 622 discovered that articles were eligible for analysis. Forest plot analysis of the mean visual analogue scale difference of the studies indicated an insignificant difference between the lidocaine and placebo group (MD -7.68; 95% CI -34.04 to -18.68, P ¼ .57). All urodynamic parameter results were also similar between the two groups (P > .05). Routine intraurethral lidocaine injection prior to a urodynamic study does not affect pain intensity and urodynamic parameters.
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.