ArticleBMJ open2022
Clinical practice guidelines for the management of adult patients with neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction: a systematic review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multidisciplinary management of people with spina bifida across the lifespan.Pediatric nephrology (Berlin, Germany) · 2024Review
- 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionNeurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction (NLUTD) both threatens the health of affected patients long-term and also has a significantly negative impact on the patients' quality of life. present, many clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have been developed for NLUTD patients, but these CPGs may confuse healthcare professionals and patients due to their great difference in terms of scope, quality and content. This review aims to identify the CPGs for NLUTD patients published from 2012 to 2022, assess their quality and then analyse them in an integrated manner. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will systematically search electronic healthcare databases (English databases including PubMed, EMBASE, OVID, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, UpToDate, and Best Practice and Chinese databases including China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Database, VIP Periodical Resource Integration Service Platform and SinoMed), online CPG repositories and relevant professional association websites to identify eligible CPGs. The CPGs published in English and Chinese with full texts available within the period from January 2012 to March 2022 will be included in this study. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II will be used to assess the quality of included CPGs. According to the predesigned data table, the general characteristics of these CPGs, proposed recommendations and their quality of evidence, strength of recommendation and other information will be extracted. Qualitative thematic analysis will be applied to the extracted recommendations. A summary of the proposed recommendations, their quality of evidence, strength of recommendation and other information will eventually be described in a table. This review is expected to identify knowledge gaps in current CPGs and to identify the areas of the proposed recommendations derived from low-level evidence. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION : This systematic review does not involve the participation of any subjects, and therefore no ethical approval is required. The findings of this review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and disseminated via conference presentations. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022318180.
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.