ArticleIrish journal of medical science2026
Lower urinary tract dysfunction in the diabetes population: endocrinologists knowledge base and clinical practice patterns.
Article in Irish journal of medical science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
- Preclinical animal models of lower urinary tract dysfunction associated with metabolic syndrome.Nature reviews. Urology · 2026Review
- From pharmacological management to regenerative medicine: a bibliometric analysis of global trends and evolutionary patterns in diabetic bladder dysfunction (2000-2024).Translational andrology and urology · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) are common in patients with diabetes, a condition that often exacerbates urinary issues. Despite the growing evidence linking diabetes with LUTS, current guidelines, including those from the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), do not include specific recommendations for LUTS assessment or treatment.
aimThis study explores the prevalence of LUTS in patients with diabetes and assesses how these symptoms are managed by healthcare professionals.
methodsA cross-sectional study was conducted in Ireland, involving surveys of both healthcare professionals and patients attending specialist diabetes clinics. The healthcare professional survey assessed their awareness of LUTS in diabetic patients, as well as their practices regarding symptom inquiry and management. The patient survey focused on the prevalence of LUTS in individuals with type 1 (T1DM) and type 2 diabetes (T2DM) and whether these symptoms were discussed with their healthcare providers.
resultsThe healthcare professional survey revealed that 88% were aware of the higher prevalence of LUTS in diabetic patients, but only 19% routinely inquired about these symptoms. There were significant differences in practice among different professional subgroups. The patient survey found that 55.8% of individuals with T1DM and 71.1% with T2DM experienced LUTS. However, only 33% of T1DM and 40% of T2DM patients discussed these symptoms with their healthcare providers. Age was associated with more severe LUTS.
conclusionThe study highlights a significant gap in the recognition and management of LUTS in diabetic patients, with many individuals experiencing bothersome symptoms without adequate treatment. The findings suggest that integrating routine LUTS assessment into diabetes care, as well as fostering interdisciplinary collaboration, could improve patient outcomes and quality of life. The study calls for the inclusion of urological care within diabetes management protocols to better address this common and impactful complication.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41222793What 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.