ArticleBioMed research international2022
A Novel Acoustic Uroflowmetry-Based Mobile App Voiding Diary: Comparison with Conventional Paper-Based Voiding Diary.
Article in BioMed research international, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bladder Diary Feasibility and Reliability in Neurogenic Lower Urinary Tract Dysfunction Patients.Neurourology and urodynamics · 2025Article
- Mobile health: a promising tool for the management of male patients with lower urinary tract symptoms suggestive of benign prostatic hyperplasia.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2023Review
- Validation of acoustic voided volume measure: a pilot prospective study.World journal of urology · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To evaluate the usefulness of a novel acoustic uroflowmetry- (UFM-) based mobile application (app) voiding diary (VD) focusing on the (1) compliance and (2) correlation with a conventional paper-based VD. Materials and Methods: A total of 78 patients were included between December 2019 and June 2020, and a subsequent review of all data was performed. The analyzed data were as follows: (1) survey of convenience/satisfaction/preference comparing the two methods, (2) compliance regarding the completeness of both methods, and (3) correlation of each metric (24-hour urine volume, nocturnal urine volume, nocturnal polyuria index, total number of voids, number of daytime voids, number of nocturnal voids, and maximal bladder capacity) between the two methods. Results: The survey results of convenience, satisfaction, and preference were as follows. With regard to convenience and satisfaction area, higher scores are reported in the mobile app VD (mean ± standard deviation (SD); convenience: 7.47 ± 2.19 [app] vs. 4.20 ± 2.49 [paper]; satisfaction: 7.36 ± 2.17 [app] vs. 5.07 ± 2.65 [paper]). The median score of the overall preference for using the mobile app instead of the paper-based VD was 9 out of 10 (mean ± SD7.82 ± 2.68). We also found a good correlation between the two methods for nocturnal urine volume ( Conclusion: The acoustic UFM-based mobile app VD demonstrated favorable findings compared to the conventional paper-based VD.
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.