ReviewNeurourology and urodynamics2025
Artifacts in Urodynamic Studies: A Narrative Review.
Review 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 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Induced diabetic neurogenic bladder animal models: application characteristics and standardization proposals via systematic data mining.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Pooled it
- Interobserver Agreement of Filling Cystometry Parameters in Children With Neurogenic Lower Urinary Tract Dysfunction.International neurourology journal · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundUrodynamic studies (UDS) are integral to the evaluation and management of lower urinary tract dysfunction. However, artifacts are frequently encountered, affecting both clinical interpretation and research reliability.
objectiveThis expert narrative review examines the prevalence, classification, and clinical relevance of artifacts encountered during UDS, based on findings from the existing literature.
methodsA focused literature review was conducted, analyzing studies that reported data on the sources and impact of UDS artifacts, particularly from the patient perspective. Emphasis was placed on identifying both technical and patient-related contributors to artifact generation.
resultsArtifacts are common in UDS despite adherence to Good Urodynamic Practices recommended by the International Continence Society. Technical artifacts may stem from equipment-related issues such as calibration errors, catheter displacement, and device variability. Patient-related artifacts can arise from physical movement or test-induced detrusor overactivity. These artifacts may lead to misinterpretation, misdiagnosis, and inappropriate interventions in clinical practice. Furthermore, they may affect the validity of research findings related to diagnostic tools for lower urinary tract symptoms.
conclusionIdentifying and addressing UDS artifacts during the procedure or in post-test interpretation is critical for accurate clinical decision-making and reliable research outcomes. Efforts to minimize artifacts should be prioritized to improve the quality and utility of UDS.
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.