Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41993921›Full record

ReviewClinical neurophysiology practice2026

Applications of pelvic neurophysiology testing in clinical practice.

Jalesh N Panicker, Sara Simeoni, Sarah Wright, Claire Hentzen, Prasad Malladi

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical neurophysiology practice, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
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.

Jalesh N PanickerDepartment of Uro-Neurology, The National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, Queen Square, London, UK.
Sara SimeoniDepartment of Uro-Neurology, The National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, Queen Square, London, UK.
Sarah WrightDepartment of Uro-Neurology, The National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, Queen Square, London, UK.
Claire HentzenSorbonne University, GRC 01, GREEN Group of Clinical REsEarch in Neurourology, AP-HP, Hôpital Pitié Salpétrière, F-75013 Paris, France.
Prasad MalladiDepartment of Uro-Neurology, The National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, Queen Square, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pelvic neurophysiology testing uniquely provides an evaluation of the sacral S2, 3 and 4 segmental somatic innervation. Since the tests are involved and some are invasive, a clear clinical question is essential in order to tailor the tests appropriately. Results should always be interpreted in conjunction with the clinical presentation and other investigation findings. The tests provide objective quantitative evidence for nerve injury and there are specific indications where these tests become of paramount importance such as the evaluation of suspected cauda equina syndrome, suspected MSA, chronic urinary retention, pelvic pain, sexual dysfunction and situations where MRI findings are inconclusive. Neurophysiology testing is a useful adjunct to clinical examination, and adds value to the diagnostic workup of patients presenting with neuro-urological disorders.

Indexed as

Anal sphincter EMGBulbocavernosus reflexCauda equina syndromeMultiple System AtrophyPudendal sensory evoked potentialsUrethral sphincter EMG

Identifiers

PMID41993921
PMCPMC13080399

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.