ReviewCurrent urology2026
Implantable bladder sensors for real-time urodynamics: A systematic review of preclinical and clinical evidence in neuro-urology.
Review in Current urology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Catheter-based urodynamic studies remain the standard for diagnosing lower urinary tract dysfunction, but are limited by discomfort, infection risk, and restricted monitoring duration. Emerging implantable bladder sensors offer the potential for real-time wireless pressure monitoring without the need for catheters, with promising applications in neurology. This study was aimed to systematically review and compare the performance, safety, and translational readiness of intravesical and submucosal implantable bladder sensors used for real-time urodynamic assessments in preclinical and clinical studies. Materials and methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, and IEEE Xplore from their inception to July 10, 2025, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Studies that evaluated wireless implantable bladder pressure sensors in animal or human models were included. Data on the pressure fidelity, biocompatibility, implantation site, and signal stability were extracted and compared. Results: Four studies met the inclusion criteria: 3 preclinical studies (rabbit or pig) and 1 human feasibility trial. Intravesical sensors showed superior pressure fidelity (correlation coefficients up to r = 0.885), minimal error (±1 cm H Conclusions: Intravesical implantable sensors demonstrated higher accuracy, safety, and translational readiness than submucosal alternatives. The success of the UroMonitor in human feasibility studies underscores its potential for catheter-free ambulatory bladder pressure monitoring. Future studies should focus on long-term implantation, artificial intelligence integration, and comparative trials using conventional urodynamics.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.