SynthesisSystematic reviews2023
Methods of postoperative void trial management after urogynecologic surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Voiding Dysfunction After Prolapse Surgery: Uterosacral Ligament Suspension Versus Sacrospinous Ligament Suspension.International urogynecology journal · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVoiding trials are used to identify women at risk for postoperative urinary retention while performing optimal voiding trial management with minimal burden to the patient and medical service team. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of postoperative void trials following urogynecologic surgery to investigate (1) the optimal postoperative void trial methodology and (2) the optimal criteria for assessing void trial.
methodWe searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and relevant reference lists of eligible articles from inception to April 2022. We identified any randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in English that studied void trials in patients undergoing urogynecologic surgery. Study selection (title/abstract and full text), data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were conducted by two independent reviewers. Extracted study outcomes included the following: the correct passing rate, time to discharge, discharge rate without a catheter after the initial void trial, postoperative urinary tract infection, and patient satisfaction.
resultsVoid trial methodology included backfill-assisted and autofill studies (2 RCTs, n = 95). Backfill assistance was more likely to be successful than autofill (RR 2.12, 95% CI 1.29, 3.47, P = 0.00); however, no significant difference was found in the time to discharge (WMDs = - 29.11 min, 95% CI - 57.45, 1.23, P = 0.06). The criteria for passing void trial included subjective assessment of the urinary force of stream and objective assessment of the standard voiding trial (3 RCTs, n = 377). No significant differences were found in the correct passing rate (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.93, 1.01, P = 0.14) or void trial failure rate (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.52, 1.18, P = 0.24). Moreover, no significant differences were found in the complication rates or patient satisfaction between the two criteria.
conclusionBladder backfilling was associated with a lower rate of catheter discharge after urogynecologic surgery. The subjective assessment of FOS is a reliable and safe method for assessing postoperative voiding because it is less invasive. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42022313397.
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.