ArticleUrology research & practice2024
Efficacy in Using Urodynamic Parameters of Intravesical Electrical Stimulation for Detrusor Underactivity.
Article in Urology research & practice, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
objectiveIntravesical electrical stimulation (IVES) remains a controversial therapy for detrusor underactivity (DUA). The purpose of this study is to determine the efficacy of IVES in patients with DUA using pre- and post-IVES urodynamic parameters.
methodsIntravesical electrical stimulation procedure is performed using a specific catheter equipped with an internal electrical electrode (cathode). The anode is subsequently affixed to the lower abdomen (suprapubic). Afterward, this specialized catheter is connected to a stimulator. Patients undergo a series of 12 IVES procedures in 1 month with the following predetermined parameters: 20 mA amplitude, 20 Hz frequency, 200 µs pulse width, and 60 minutes stimulation time. Patients underwent a follow-up urodynamic examination 1 month after the IVES series is completed.
resultsAfter IVES, several notable changes were observed, including an increase in Qmax from 7.28 ± 5.24 to 7.29 ± 4.09 (P=.030), a decrease in post-void residual (PVR) from 73.03 ± 43.91 to 62.07 ± 39.10 (P=.005), and an increase in PDet@tQmax from 17.10 ± 12.35 to 18.87 ± 12.47 (P=.009). The aetiologies of DUA were categorized into 3 groups: chronic obstruction (CO), idiopathic (Idio), and neurological disorder (ND). The CO group exhibited significant changes in urodynamic parameters, specifically Qmax (P=.001), PVR (P=.001), and PDet@Qmax (P=.035). Similarly, the idiopathic group also demonstrated improvements in Qmax (P=.008), PVR (P=.037), and PDet@ Qmax (P=.033).
conclusionIntravesical electrical stimulation has been shown to have a positive effect on patients diagnosed with DUA, particularly those whose DUA is idiopathic or due to chronic obstruction.
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.