ArticleFrontiers in endocrinology2025
Construction of a management protocol for high-risk neurogenic bladder in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes: a Delphi study.
Article in Frontiers in endocrinology, 2025. 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
Objectives: The objective of this study is to establish an evidence-based protocol for managing high-risk neurogenic bladder (NB) in Chinese patients with T2DM, integrating risk stratification to standardize clinical practice in China region. Methods: Through a two-round Delphi consensus process involving 20 national experts and evidence synthesis from 13 clinical guidelines and a systematic review, we developed China's first hierarchical NB risk stratification system. Quantitative analyses incorporated authority weighting (0-1 scale), coordination coefficients, and Kendall's concordance testing across 81 systematically validated clinical indicators. Results: High expert engagement persisted through both rounds (Round 1: 90% response rate; Round 2: 94.7%). Consensus levels demonstrated progressive improvement, with primary indicators achieving the most substantial enhancement (Kendall's W: 0.289 vs. 0.391, 35.3% improvement). Secondary and tertiary indicators showed 5.5% and 27.4% increases respectively (all Conclusion: This consensus-driven framework provides innovative clinical tools for NB risk stratification in diabetes care. Its three-tiered structure-integrating policy recommendations, clinical algorithms, and bedside assessment protocols-significantly improves patient management and outcomes, serving as a valuable resource to guide clinical practice.
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.