ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2026
Quality Control Audit of Urodynamic Traces Published in Scientific Articles.
Article in International urogynecology journal, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisThe published urodynamic traces have been selected by their authors and subjected to peer review. The aims of the study were to describe quality control and print size of urodynamic traces published in scientific articles.
methodsAll articles published during 5 years from four specialized journals were reviewed. Eighteen articles with filling cystometry and/or pressure-flow studies traces were selected for analysis. Urodynamic traces were classified according to the type of curve. The minimum acceptable print size was half the width of the page for filling cystometry and pressure-flow studies, and the full width of the page for filling cystometry + pressure-flow studies. Eleven items of the Bristol UTraQ scoring system were evaluated. Articles that explicitly stated that they had followed the ICS good urodynamic practices were recorded.
resultsFour items had less than 50% compliance: intravesical and abdominal pressures marked on the trace as being zeroed to atmosphere, good quality cough test done at the end of filling, before voiding, "permission to void" indicated on the trace and good quality cough test done after the final void. There were no statistical differences in the quality control scores between articles that did and did not explicitly state that they had followed ICS good urodynamic practices. Twenty-one out of 44 traces (47.7%) had a minimum acceptable print size.
conclusionPublished urodynamic traces of these journals demonstrate imperfect quality control and have small print sizes. This generates the need to maintain vigorous strategies for disseminating and monitoring "good urodynamic practices."
Indexed as
Identifiers
41051571What 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.