SynthesisThe Canadian journal of urology2025
Is the Barthel index a valid tool for patient selection before urological surgery? A systematic review.
Synthesis in The Canadian journal of urology, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Barthel Index (BI) measures the level of patient independence in activities of daily living. This review aims to summarize current evidence on the use of the BI in urology, highlighting its potential as a tool for assessing patients prior to surgery. MATERIALS AND
methodsA comprehensive search of PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases was conducted for studies evaluating the BI in patients undergoing urologic surgery, following Systematic Review and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The BI was investigated both as a descriptor of baseline or postoperative health status and a prognostic indicator. A qualitative data synthesis was provided.
resultsOverall, nine studies were included (three retrospective, six prospective). Surgical contexts included radical cystectomy (RC) in three studies, kidney transplantation in two, trans-urethral resection/vaporization of the prostate (TURP/TUVRP) in two, with the remainder including several different urological procedures for both oncological and non-oncological diseases. Evidence suggested that the BI reliably reflects functional status pre- and post-operatively, independently predicts major postoperative complications, prolonged hospital stay, higher healthcare costs, and poorer oncologic outcomes in RC patients. Additionally, the BI was associated with postoperative delirium in patients undergoing TURP and predicted the risk of deep vein thrombosis in patients undergoing major urological surgical procedures.
conclusionThe BI is a valid tool for evaluating functional reserve in urologic patients. Its preoperative application can help identify patients at higher risk of adverse outcomes, thereby facilitating personalized treatment planning and optimizing surgical care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41220348What 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.