ReviewEuropean urology open science2022
Randomised Controlled Trials Assessing the Clinical Value of Urodynamic Studies: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Invasive urodynamic investigations in the management of women with refractory overactive bladder symptoms: FUTURE, a superiority RCT and economic evaluation.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2025Trial
- 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 · 2026Article
- Impact of Urodynamic Parameters on Treatment Decision-Making in Men Under 50 With Treatment-Resistant Chronic Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms.Neurourology and urodynamics · 2026Article
- The Role of Urodynamic Studies in Female Patients with Non-Neurogenic Lower Urinary Tract Dysfunction: A Retrospective Analysis.Urology research & practice · 2026Article
- Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Bladder Wall Thickness for the Diagnosis of Detrusor Overactivity in Women.International urogynecology journal · 2026Review
- Neurotrophins and Proneurotrophins as Biomarkers for Overactive Bladder Syndrome in Aging Females.Metabolites · 2025Article
- Is the time right for a new initiative in mathematical modeling of the lower urinary tract? ICI-RS 2023.Neurourology and urodynamics · 2024Review
- Detrusor underactivity and complicated stress urinary incontinence: a cross-data study.Central European journal of urology · 2024Article
- The Utility of Urodynamic Studies in Neuro-Urological Patients.Biomedicines · 2023Review
- Rehabilitation care of patients with neurogenic bladder after spinal cord injury: A literature review.World journal of clinical cases · 2023Review
- A Precision Urodynamic Diagnosis is Essential for Successful Treatment of Lower Urinary Tract Dysfunction.European urology open science · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors at 13 institutions in 8 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.