ArticleWorld journal of urology2026
Digital versus paper-based voiding diaries: a feasibility study of usability, data quality, patient satisfaction and adherence.
Article in World journal of 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aims to compare the effectiveness, user experience, usability, and clinical utility of an electronic voiding diary (EVD) versus a traditional paper-based voiding diary (PVD) in patients undergoing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP).
methodsIn this exploratory feasibility study, 29 patients completed both an EVD and PVD following catheter removal, documenting micturition, pad use, and fluid intake. Usability was assessed using the System Usability Scale (SUS), task performance, and questionnaires on digital habits. Data were stratified by age, screen time, and app usage.
resultsThis study included 29 men (mean age 65.24 ± 6.73 years) after RARP. SUS scores were higher in patients with regular app use (79.85 vs. 43.33; p = 0.024). In patients with ≥ 2 h daily screen time SUS Scores were 80.42 vs. 59.32 (< 2 h daily screen time; p = 0.139). Regular app users consistently preferred the EVD across all four evaluated categories: usability (regular app use 1.19 EVD vs. infrequent app use 2.17 PVD; p = 0.014), misunderstandings (0.25 PVD vs. 1.83 EVD; p = 0.049), learnability (1.00 EVD vs. 2.33 PVD; p = 0.030), and graphical presentation (3.38 EVD vs. 0.33 EVD; p = 0.020).
conclusionThis feasibility study demonstrates that EVDs are practical, reliable, and well-accepted for early postoperative monitoring after RARP. Usability was strongly influenced by age and digital experience, with younger, regular app users with higher daily screen time performing better. These findings support further development and broader implementation of EVDs in urological care.
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.