ArticleBMC urology2023
Evaluation of the effectiveness of four alternative approaches for the classical cough test during a urodynamic study in the context of the COVID-19 global pandemic.
Article in BMC urology, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroudTo evaluate four different alternatives to the classical cough test during a urodynamic study in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.
methodsPatients who needed to undergo a urodynamic study (UDS) at the West China Hospital of Sichuan University between April 2021 and May 2021 were randomly selected according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. During the UDS process, we used four alternative methods to the "cough test": 1) quickly pressing the bladder area, 2) performing the Valsalva maneuver, 3) performing the Kegel maneuver, and 4) letting the patient close their mouth while performing the cough test. The "cough" waveform amplitudes and characteristics of the graphics were obtained and compared with the classical cough test.
resultsA total of 120 patients (89 men, 31 women) were included in the study. There was no significant difference between the cough waveform amplitude induced by the Valsalva maneuver compared with the classical cough test (P = 0.182); there was no significant difference between the cough waveform amplitude induced by the cough test with the mouth closed and the classical cough test (P = 0.342); there was no significant difference between pressing quickly on the bladder area and the classical method (P = 0.076); and there was a significant difference between the data obtained by the Kegel maneuver and the classical method (P < 0.05). The average "cough" amplitudes obtained were 73.14 ± 22.48 cm H2O, 66.17 ± 17.12 cm H2O, 82.93 ± 18.95 cm H2O, 26.50 ± 8.68 cm H2O, and 68.90 ± 20.32 cm H2O by the classical cough test, by quickly pressing the bladder area, by the Valsalva maneuver, by the Kegel maneuver, and by coughing with a closed mouth, respectively.
conclusionQuickly pressing the bladder area, performing the Valsalva maneuver, and letting the patient close their mouth while performing the cough test can all provide effective cough waveforms and amplitudes.
trial registrationNo. 2021-183.
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.