Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41636147›Full record

ReviewNeurourology and urodynamics2026

What Are the Limitations of Measuring Bladder Compliance, As the Sole Indicator of Future Risk to the Upper Urinary Tract and Renal Function? ICI-RS 2025.

Eric Rovner, Marcus J Drake, Solomon Eskinder, Andrew Gammie, Sanjay Sinha, John Speich

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Neurourology and urodynamics, 2026. 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

6 authors.

Eric RovnerDepartment of Urology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3950-8752
Marcus J DrakeDept of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, UK.
Solomon EskinderThe Urology Centre, Guy's and St Thomas NHS Trust, London, UK.
Andrew GammieBristol Urological Institute, Southmead Hospital, Bristol, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5546-357X
Sanjay SinhaDepartment of Urology, Apollo Hospitals, Hyderabad, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7090-2091
John SpeichDepartment of Mechanical and Nuclear Engineering, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8824-4098

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionMaintenance of bladder filling and urinary storage at low intravesical pressures is fundamental to minimizing risk to the upper urinary tract. Bladder compliance describes the relationship between the bladder volume and the change in detrusor pressure during the filling phase of urodynamics. Although significant clinical studies were performed 40 years ago, as currently conceived, the concept of bladder compliance and the associated normative values are inexact as an isolated measurement in predicting upper urinary tract deterioration in individual patients. The purpose of this review is to better define some of these limitations and propose potential means of addressing them.

methodsThe ICI-RS meeting was held in Bristol, England in June 2025, and Proposal 4 reviewed the current limitations of measuring bladder compliance as a predictor of upper urinary tract deterioration. Several ideas were discussed regarding the existing shortcomings of this parameter as well as potential methods of improving its measurement and prognostic value. Future research questions were reviewed and prioritized.

resultsThe current methods of measurement and normative values for bladder compliance are inadequate for assessing upper urinary tract risk in many patients. The urodynamic technique for assessing compliance is not standardized among investigators resulting in potential variances between patients and centres. In addition, many patients undergoing urodynamics have very abnormal lower urinary tract anatomy. Such differences in structure, if not accounted for, could impact compliance assessment. Finally, the current "gold standard" of assessing compliance, the pressure-flow urodynamic study, involves catheters and is expensive, and itself may not account for a number of other factors which could potentially affect upper urinary tract risk. Alternative methods of assessing bladder compliance and upper urinary tract risk are investigational but may have some improved prognostic value.

conclusionsPrediciting upper urinary tract deterioration due to abnormalities of bladder compliance remains inexact as an isolated metric. The reasons for the lack of sensitivity and specificity are not well understood. Identifying the limitations of bladder compliance, modifying its assessment or combining it with other clinical or biological measurements may provide better and more precise prognostic information. In the meantime, advice is given on a "common sense" way by which UDS can be modified in relevant patient, in order to provide information that improves management and surveillance of vulnerable patients at risk from renal damage.

Indexed as

KidneyUrinary BladderUrodynamicsComplianceHumansPredictive Value of TestsPressureRisk AssessmentRisk Factorsbladdercomplianceelastographyurodynamicsvibrometry

Identifiers

PMID41636147
PMCPMC13238306

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.