Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35804357›Full record

ArticleBMC pediatrics2022

A 15-year retrospective review of urodynamic studies in children at Red Cross War Memorial Children's Hospital, Cape town, South Africa.

Thembisile Dintle Mosalakatane, Mignon McCulloch, Peter Nourse, Ashton Coetzee, Anne Wright, Jeanette Raad, John Lazarus, Justin Howlett

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC pediatrics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 47% 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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Thembisile Dintle MosalakataneDivision of Paediatric Nephrology, School of Child and Adolescent Health, Red Cross War Memorial Children's Hospital, University of Cape Town, Western Cape, Cape Town, 7700, South Africa. dintletn@yahoo.com.ORCID 0000-0001-5871-0345
Mignon McCullochDivision of Paediatric Nephrology, School of Child and Adolescent Health, Red Cross War Memorial Children's Hospital, University of Cape Town, Western Cape, Cape Town, 7700, South Africa.
Peter NourseDivision of Paediatric Nephrology, School of Child and Adolescent Health, Red Cross War Memorial Children's Hospital, University of Cape Town, Western Cape, Cape Town, 7700, South Africa.
Ashton CoetzeeDivision of Paediatric Nephrology, School of Child and Adolescent Health, Red Cross War Memorial Children's Hospital, University of Cape Town, Western Cape, Cape Town, 7700, South Africa.
Anne WrightChildren's Bladder Clinic, Evelina London Children's Hospital (Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust), London, England.
Jeanette RaadUrodynamic and Manometric Unit, Red Cross War Memorial Children's Hospital, University of Cape Town, Western Cape, Cape Town, 7700, South Africa.
John LazarusDivision of Urology, Red Cross War Memorial Children's Hospital, University of Cape Town, Western Cape, Cape Town, 7700, South Africa.
Justin HowlettDivision of Urology, Red Cross War Memorial Children's Hospital, University of Cape Town, Western Cape, Cape Town, 7700, South Africa.
University of Cape Town · ZAGuy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite the undeniable diagnostic benefits of urodynamic studies (UDS), their adoption into clinical practice in Africa has been slow. This study aimed to review the use of invasive UDS in children at a tertiary paediatric hospital in South Africa.

methodsA retrospective analysis of 1108 UDS was conducted. Patient demographic characteristics, primary diagnosis, indication and urodynamic outcomes were reviewed. Presence of urodynamic high-risk features were documented, and a comparison was made between the first study and follow-up study.

resultsThis study revealed increasing trends in the use of UDS from 2015. Referrals were from Urology (37.7%), Spinal defects clinic (34.4%), Nephrology (20.8%) and other departments (7.0%). The most common reason for referral was review of medical treatment (36.5%). Spinal dysraphism (58.3%) accounted for the majority of conditions seen. Majority (59.1%) of the patients were receiving more than one type of bladder treatment at the time of their first study, with clean intermittent catheterisation (46.5%) being the most common form of bladder management. 97.5% of studies were performed using transurethral bladder catheterization. Urodynamic diagnosis was neurogenic in 74.0%, anatomical (12.2%), functional (8.8%) and normal (5.0%). There was statistically significant improvement in bladder compliance, detrusor leak point pressure and detrusor sphincter dyssynergia between the first study and a subsequent study following therapeutic intervention.

conclusionsThe unique ability of UDS to demonstrate changes in detrusor pressures, which is a common reason for therapy failure, makes UDS an invaluable tool in the diagnosis and management of children with lower urinary tract dysfunction.

Indexed as

Urinary Bladder, NeurogenicUrodynamicsChildFollow-Up StudiesHospitals, PediatricHumansRed CrossRetrospective StudiesSouth AfricaDLPPDSDICCSLUTDNDONLUTDUrodynamic Study

Identifiers

PMID35804357
PMCPMC9263046
OpenAlexW4284878940

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.