Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40085782›Full record

ArticleUrogynecology (Philadelphia, Pa.)2026

Trials and Tribulations of a Urinary Incontinence Screening Tool.

Falisha F Kanji, Tara Cohen, Claire S Burton, Catherine Bresee, Joshua Pevnick, Teryl Nuckols, Neil Wenger, Jennifer T Anger

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Urogynecology (Philadelphia, Pa.), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Falisha F KanjiDepartment of Surgery, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA.
Tara CohenDepartment of Surgery, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA.
Claire S BurtonUrologic Reconstructive Surgery, City of Hope, Duarte, CA.
Catherine BreseeDepartment of Cancer Institute Shared Services, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA.
Joshua PevnickDepartment of Internal Medicine, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA.
Teryl NuckolsDepartment of Internal Medicine, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA.
Neil WengerDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA.
Jennifer T AngerDepartment of Urology, UC San Diego, San Diego, CA.

Funding

A Practice-based Intervention to Improve Care for Women with Urinary IncontinenceR56DK117261 · NIDDK · CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER · PI NUCKOLS, TERYL · 2018 to 2020
$402k
AHRQ HHS R01 HS027455AHRQ HHS U18 HS028740NIDDK NIH HHS R56 DK117261
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

importanceWomen experiencing symptoms of urinary incontinence (UI) may be reluctant to discuss their symptoms with their primary care physicians (providers) due to embarrassment and stigma surrounding the condition.

objectivesAs part of a primary care quality improvement pilot intervention for UI, this study aimed to assess the success of an online screening tool in identifying bothersome urinary UI in a primary care setting. A secondary analysis sought to determine the percentage of women who discussed the condition with their providers. STUDY

designProviders from a regional medical group in Southern California and their female patients 18 years of age and older were invited to participate between July 2019 and February 2020. Female patients were recruited via a screening survey. Providers were alerted by email and the patient's electronic health record when a patient screened positive.

resultsTwenty-four providers participated in the study. A total of 6,360 screening surveys were sent to female patients. Seven hundred nine (11.15%) responses were received. Three hundred two patients reported experiencing symptoms of UI, but only 166 patients chose to participate. Of the 166 participating patients, 35 (21.08%) spoke with their providers about their symptoms after they were screened.

conclusionsOnline screening for UI is feasible. The observation that only 21% of patients had conversations with their providers about their symptoms during the appointment, even after the provider was notified of the positive screen, suggests the need for better tools, such as alerts in the medical record, to enhance provider awareness of their patients' UI.

Indexed as

Mass ScreeningUrinary IncontinenceAdultAgedCaliforniaFemaleHumansMiddle AgedPhysician-Patient RelationsPilot ProjectsPrimary Health CareQuality ImprovementSurveys and Questionnairespatient careprimary careurinary incontinenceurology

Identifiers

PMID40085782
PMCPMC13459699

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.