ArticleBMC nursing2026
Strategies for improving comfort and satisfaction in adult patients undergoing urodynamic studies: an evidence summary.
Article in BMC nursing, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo systematically review and summarize the best available evidence on improving comfort and satisfaction in adult patients undergoing urodynamic study (UDS), to provide an evidence-based foundation for clinical practice.
methodsThis evidence summary followed the standardized reporting framework of the Fudan University Center for Evidence-Based Nursing (Registration number: ES20259563). Based on the "5S" model of evidence resources, a systematic search was conducted in the following databases: BMJ Best Practice, UpToDate, Guidelines International Network, World Health Organization, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, MedPulse, European Association of Urology, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Urogynecologic Society, Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Sinomed, CNKI, and Wanfang. The search focused on strategies to enhance satisfaction and comfort during UDS in adults. Literature types included clinical decisions, guidelines, expert consensus, evidence summaries, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and qualitative studies, from inception to December 31, 2025. Two researchers independently conducted literature quality assessment, evidence extraction, and synthesis.
resultsA total of 968 records were retrieved, with 21 articles meeting the inclusion criteria after screening, comprising 2 systematic reviews, 1 expert consensus, 15 RCTs, and 3 qualitative studies. From these, 18 evidence items were summarized across four domains: Communication and Information Support, Environmental and Sensory Modulation, Local and Pharmacological Interventions, and Privacy and Dignity Preservation, with 11 classified as Level 1, 6 as Level 3, and 1 as Level 5.
conclusionThis study systematically integrated the best available evidence for improving comfort and satisfaction during UDS in adults, identifying effective strategies of nursing interventions. These findings provide an evidence-based foundation for implementing standardized, personalized comfort care in clinical practice, enhancing the quality of nursing care, and offer a reference for developing or updating UDS-related guidelines or standards.
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.