ArticleNeurourology and urodynamics2025
Critical Appraisal of Guidelines for Daytime Urinary Incontinence in Children: Evaluation of Quality and Recommendations on Diagnostics.
Article in Neurourology and urodynamics, 2025. 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.
- Critical Appraisal of Guidelines for Daytime Urinary Incontinence in Children: Comparison of Recommendations on Treatment.Neurourology and urodynamics · 2025Article
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
Abstract
aimsThis study aimed to evaluate the quality of currently available guidelines on non-neurogenic daytime urinary incontinence (DUI) in children and compare their content regarding the assessment of a child with DUI.
methodsWe conducted a systematic search for guidelines on non-neurogenic DUI in children. A multidisciplinary team assessed the quality using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE) instrument, which contains 23 items organized into six domains. Besides, each member evaluated if they would recommend using the guidelines. We extracted diagnostic recommendations from all guidelines for a descriptive comparison.
resultsEight guidelines were included. Overall quality scores ranged from 2.6 to 5.8 on a 7-point scale, (1 for lowest and 7 for highest quality). Three guidelines were rated as good, four as moderate, and one as low quality. The AGREE-II domain Clarity and Presentation received high scores across all guidelines, while Rigour of Development and Applicability received the lowest scores. Recommendations for diagnostics were generally similar, with variations observed in guidelines targeting primary and secondary healthcare.
conclusionsThis study is the first to assess the quality of guidelines on non-neurogenic DUI in children. The quality varies, only two out of eight guidelines were recommended by the review team without adjustments. Guideline developers could improve the quality of their guidelines by using tools like AGREE II. Clinicians should consider the findings of our study when selecting a guideline to use in their daily practice. CLINICAL
trial registrationAs this is a review, no clinical trial registration was conducted. The review protocol has been registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021149059).
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.