ArticleCanadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada2023
A prospective assessment of the validity of the CUA neurogenic bladder guideline.
Article in Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada, 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
introductionThe Canadian Urological Association (CUA) neurogenic bladder guideline surveillance strategy for neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction (NLUTD) has not been formally evaluated. Our objective was to evaluate the validity of the risk stratification suggested in these guidelines.
methodsThis was a prospective, observational cohort study of adult NLUTD patients with spinal cord injury, multiple sclerosis, or spina bifida who required urodynamics. Patients with a requirement for immediate bladder surgery (not suitable for surveillance) were excluded. Patients completed standardized medical history/questionnaires, baseline urodynamics, renal imaging, and creatinine tests. The primary outcome was the need for different types of urological management between the high-risk and moderate-risk groups.
resultsWe enrolled 68 patients; most commonly, these were spinal cord injury patients, and most people were using intermittent catheters. At baseline, 62% (40/68) were classified as high-risk. In this group, there was a numerically greater proportion who received a recommendation for a new urological medication (48% vs. 25%, p=0.06) or a change to their bladder management (45% vs. 36%, p=0.44). A total of 26 high-risk and 23 medium-risk NLUTD patients had a one- year followup visit. A larger proportion of the high-risk patients had a recommendation for a new bladder medication (15.4% vs. 8.7% p=0.47), intravesical onabotulinum toxin (34.6% vs. 13% p=0.08), or an alternate method of bladder management (15.4% vs. 4.3%, p=0.2). Mean creatinine change was slightly greater in the high-risk group (+6.1 vs. +0.4 umol/L, p=0.05). Approximately 1/3 of both high-risk and moderate-risk patients didn't accept the recommended interventions.
conclusionsA higher proportion of high-risk NLUTD patients had urology-relevant interventions recommended, both at baseline and at their one-year followup visit. This supports the general concept of risk stratification and the variables used to define high-risk in the CUA's neurogenic bladder guideline.
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.