Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36110903›Full record

ReviewEuropean urology open science2022

Randomised Controlled Trials Assessing the Clinical Value of Urodynamic Studies: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Nicolas S Bodmer, Carla Wirth, Veronika Birkhäuser, Andrea M Sartori, Lorenz Leitner, Marcio A Averbeck, Stefan de Wachter, Enrico Finazzi Agro, Andrew Gammie, Howard B Goldman and 7 more

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in European urology open science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Urinary outcomes following colpocleisis without concomitant anti-incontinence procedure: A retrospective single-center study.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
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

17 authors at 13 institutions in 8 countries.

Nicolas S BodmerDepartment of Neuro-Urology, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland.
Carla WirthDepartment of Neuro-Urology, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland.
Veronika BirkhäuserDepartment of Neuro-Urology, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland.
Andrea M SartoriDepartment of Neuro-Urology, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland.
Lorenz LeitnerDepartment of Neuro-Urology, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland.
Marcio A AverbeckDepartment of Urology, Moinhos de Vento Hospital, Porto Alegre, Brazil.
Stefan de WachterDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Antwerp, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium.
Enrico Finazzi AgroDepartment of Surgical Sciences, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy.
Andrew GammieBristol Urological Institute, Southmead Hospital, Bristol, UK.
Howard B GoldmanThe Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Glickman Urological Institute, Cleveland, USA.
Ruth Kirschner-HermannsNeuro-Urology/Urology, University Clinic, Friedrich Wilhelms University Bonn, Bonn, Germany.
Peter F W M RosierDepartment of Urology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Maurizio SeratiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Urogynecology Unit, University of Insubria, Varese, Italy.
Eskinder SolomonUrology Centre, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Trust, London, UK.
Gommert van KoeveringeDepartment of Urology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Lucas M BachmannMedignition Inc., Research Consultants, Zürich, Switzerland.
Thomas M KesslerDepartment of Neuro-Urology, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland.
University of Zurich · CHCleveland Clinic · USGuy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust · GBHospital Moinhos de Vento · BRMaastricht University Medical Centre · NLMedignition (Switzerland) · CHSouthmead Hospital · GBUniversitätsklinik Balgrist · CHUniversity Medical Center Utrecht · NLUniversity of Antwerp · BEUniversity of Bonn · DEUniversity of Insubria · ITUniversity of Rome Tor Vergata · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Context: The role of urodynamic studies (UDSs) in the diagnosis of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) is crucial. Although expert statements and guidelines underline their value for clinical decision-making in various clinical settings, the academic debate as to their impact on patient outcomes continues. Objective: To summarise the evidence from all randomised controlled trials assessing the clinical usefulness of UDS in the management of LUTS. Evidence acquisition: For this systematic review, searches were performed without language restrictions in three electronic databases until November 18, 2020. The inclusion criteria were randomised controlled study design and allocation to receive UDS or not prior to any clinical management. Quality assessment was performed by two reviewers independently, using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing the risk of bias. A random-effect meta-analysis was performed on the uniformly reported outcome parameters. Evidence synthesis: Eight trials were included, and all but two focused on women with pure or predominant stress urinary incontinence (SUI). A meta-analysis of six studies including 942 female patients was possible for treatment success, as defined by the authors (relative risk 1.00, 95% confidence interval: 0.93-1.07), indicating no difference in efficacy when managing women with UDS. Conclusions: Although UDSs are not replaceable in diagnostics, since there is no other equivalent method to find out exactly what the lower urinary tract problem is, there are little data supporting its impact on outcomes. Randomised controlled trials have focussed on a small group of women with uncomplicated SUI and showed no added value, but these findings cannot be extrapolated to the overall patient population with LUTS, warranting further well-designed trials. Patient summary: Despite urodynamics being the gold standard to assess lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), as it is the only method that can specify lower urinary tract dysfunction, more studies assessing the clinical usefulness of urodynamic studies (UDSs) in the management of LUTS are needed. UDS investigation is not increasing the probability of success in the treatment of stress urinary incontinence.

Indexed as

Lower urinary tract symptomsProstatic hyperplasiaStressUrinary incontinenceUrodynamics

Identifiers

PMID36110903
PMCPMC9469658
OpenAlexW4294612052

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.