Urodynamics prior to treatment as an intervention: A pilot study

Neurourology and Urodynamics

Volumn 29, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 522-526

  Majumdar, Amitabha ^a   Latthe, Pallavi ^a   Toozs Hobson, Philip ^a  

^a BIRMINGHAM WOMEN S HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

LUTS; Prospective; Urodynamics

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONSERVATIVE TREATMENT; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; EVALUATION; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; PATIENT COMPLIANCE; PATIENT DECISION MAKING; PILOT STUDY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SYMPTOM; TREATMENT FAILURE; TREATMENT OUTCOME; TREATMENT RESPONSE; URINARY TRACT INFECTION; URINE INCONTINENCE; URODYNAMICS;

ADULT; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; LOGISTIC MODELS; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PILOT PROJECTS; QUESTIONNAIRES; RESEARCH DESIGN; TREATMENT OUTCOME; URINARY BLADDER; URINARY INCONTINENCE, STRESS; URINATION; URODYNAMICS; UROLOGIC DISEASES;

EID: 77953546986     PISSN: 07332467     EISSN: 15206777     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/nau.20810     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Abrams P, Cardozo L, Fall M., et al. The standardisation of terminology of lower urinary tract function: report from the Standardisation Sub-committee of the International Continence Society. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2002;187:116-126
2. Perry S, Shaw C, Assassa P., et al. An epidemiological study to establish the prevalence of urinary symptoms and felt need in the community: the Leicestershire MRC Incontinence Study. Leicestershire MRC Incontinence Study Team. Journal of Public Health Medicine 2000;22:427-434
3. Hannestad YS, Rortveit G, Sandvik H., et al. A community-based epidemiological survey of female urinary incontinence: the Norwegian EPINCONT study. Epidemiology of Incontinence in the County of Nord-Trondelag. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2000;53:1150-1157
4. Papanicolaou S, Hunskaar S, Lose G., et al. Assessment of bothersomeness and impact on quality of life of urinary incontinence in women in France, Germany, Spain and the UK. BJU International 2005;96:831-838
5. Cardozo LD, Stanton SL. Genuine stress incontinence and detrusor instability- a review of 200 patients. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1980;87:184-190
6. Gorton E, Stanton S. Ambulatory urodynamics: do they help clinical management? British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2000;107:316-319
7. Jarvis GJ, Hall S, Stamp S., et al. An assessment of urodynamic examination in incontinent women. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1980;87: 893-896
8. Lose G, Fantl JA, Victor A., et al. Outcome measures for research in adult women with symptoms of lower urinary tract dysfunction. Neurourology & Urodynamics 1998;17:255-262
9. Lose G, Thyssen H. Reproducibility of cystometry and pressure-flow parameters in female patients. Neurourology & Urodynamics 1996;15: 302-303 Ref Type: Abstract
10. Ramsay I, Hassan A, Hunter M., et al. A randomised controlled trial of urodynamic investigation prior to conservative treatment of urinary incontinence in the female. Neurourology & Urodynamics 1994;13:455-456 Ref Type: Abstract
11. National Collaborating Centre for Women'sand Children's Health. Urinary Incontinence- The Management of Urinary Incontinence in Women. Commissioned by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence 2006. Ref Type: Report
12. Coulter A. Paternalism or partnership? Patients have grown up-and there's no going back. British Medical Journal 1999;319:719-720
13. Torgerson DJ, Sibbald B. Understanding controlled trials. What is a patient preference trial? British Medical Journal 1998;316:360.
14. SchaferW, Abrams P, Liao L., et al. Good urodynamic practices: uroflowmetry, filling cystometry, and pressure-flow studies. Neurourology & Urodynamics 2002;21:261-274
15. Silverman WA, Altman DG. Patients' preferences and randomised trials. Lancet 1996;347:171-174
16. King M, Nazareth I, Lampe F., et al. Conceptual framework and systematic review of the effects of participants and professionals preferences in randomised controlled trials. Health Technology Assessment 2005;9:1-iv.
17. Coulter A. Patient information and shared decision-making in cancer care. British Journal of Cancer 2003;89(Suppl 1):S15-6.
18. Coulter A. Perspectives on health technology assessment: response from the patient's perspective. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2004;20:92-96
19. Glazener CM, Lapitan MC. Urodynamic investigations for management of urinary incontinence in adults. Cochrane Database System Review 2002;(3): CD003195