Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41228138›Full record

ReviewHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2025

Advancing Evidence-Based Nursing: The Updated German Expert Standard on Continence Promotion.

Julien Pöhner, Julia Kaiser, Moritz Krebs, Andreas Büscher, Daniela Hayder-Beichel

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Julien PöhnerDepartment of Social Science, Bremen University of Applied Sciences, Am Brill 2-4, 28195 Bremen, Germany.ORCID 0009-0001-8509-8750
Julia KaiserDepartment of Healthcare, Niederrhein University of Applied Sciences, Reinarzstr. 49, 47805 Krefeld, Germany.
Moritz KrebsDepartment of Economics and Social Sciences, Osnabrueck University of Applied Sciences, Albrechtstr. 30, 49076 Osnabrueck, Germany.
Andreas BüscherDepartment of Economics and Social Sciences, Osnabrueck University of Applied Sciences, Albrechtstr. 30, 49076 Osnabrueck, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-6909-7379
Daniela Hayder-BeichelDepartment of Healthcare, Niederrhein University of Applied Sciences, Reinarzstr. 49, 47805 Krefeld, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIncontinence is a widespread and socially taboo phenomenon worldwide. Incontinence, with its various manifestations, is one of the most common illnesses in outpatient medical care and represents a serious health problem for those affected of all ages. As part of the second update of the German expert standard published in 2024 on continence promotion, a systematic literature review was conducted to identify, appraise, and synthesize current evidence on nursing interventions to promote urinary and fecal continence. The expert standard does not provide a gradation of recommendations, but rather that the criteria depicted in the standard have the highest possible recommendation character in the sense of the best available knowledge. The aim of this article is to present the examination of available evidence within the context of the second update of the expert standard. METHODOLOGY: A systematic literature review was conducted between September and December 2022 with additional guideline research in December 2023 in Medline (via PubMed), CINAHL (via EBSCO), and the Cochrane Library, using predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Additional guideline databases and organizational websites were searched manually. The review process and reporting were guided by PRISMA 2020 reporting standards. Eligible studies included qualitative, quantitative, and guideline publications in English or German published since 2012. Study selection, data extraction, and critical appraisal were conducted independently by two reviewers.

resultsOf 2850 initial records, 60 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review. The majority were systematic reviews and evidence-based guidelines. The central literature-based results of the expert standard are presented based on the steps of the nursing process. The findings were thematically synthesized along the steps of the nursing process and informed key nursing interventions for continence promotion and compensation, including assessment, patient education, pelvic floor training, and selection of continence aids. DISCUSSION: There are a variety of evidence-based interventions that can be used to deal with urinary and/or fecal incontinence and the tasks that professional nurses take on in promoting continence are complex. Patients and their relatives want information and advice on treatment options, reliable contacts and individual support offers to make informed decisions.

Indexed as

evidence-based careexpert standardfecal incontinenceurinary incontinence

Identifiers

PMID41228138
PMCPMC12609654

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.