Abstract
BACKGROUND: Urodynamic tests are used to investigate people who have urinary incontinence or other urinary symptoms in order to make an objective diagnosis. The investigations are invasive and time consuming.
OBJECTIVES: To determine if treatment according to a urodynamic-based diagnosis, compared to treatment based on history and examination, leads to more effective clinical care and better clinical outcomes.
SEARCH METHODS: Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialized Register (searched February 19, 2013); reference lists of relevant articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized and quasi-randomized trials in people who were and were not investigated using urodynamics, or comparing one type of urodynamic test against another.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two independent review authors carried out trial assessment, selection, and data abstraction.
RESULTS: We found eight trials but data were available for only 1,036 women in seven trials. Women undergoing urodynamics were more likely to have their management changed (17% vs. 3%, risk ratio [RR] 5.07, 95% CI 1.87-13.74). Two trials suggested that women were more likely to receive drugs (RR 2.09, 95% CI 1.32-3.31), but, in five trials, women were not more likely to undergo surgery (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.88-1.12). There was no statistically significant difference in urinary incontinence in women who had urodynamics (37%) compared with those undergoing history and clinical examination alone (36%) (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.86-1.21).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: While urodynamics did change clinical decision-making, there was some high-quality evidence that this did not result in lower urinary incontinence rates after treatment.
OBJECTIVES: To determine if treatment according to a urodynamic-based diagnosis, compared to treatment based on history and examination, leads to more effective clinical care and better clinical outcomes.
SEARCH METHODS: Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialized Register (searched February 19, 2013); reference lists of relevant articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized and quasi-randomized trials in people who were and were not investigated using urodynamics, or comparing one type of urodynamic test against another.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two independent review authors carried out trial assessment, selection, and data abstraction.
RESULTS: We found eight trials but data were available for only 1,036 women in seven trials. Women undergoing urodynamics were more likely to have their management changed (17% vs. 3%, risk ratio [RR] 5.07, 95% CI 1.87-13.74). Two trials suggested that women were more likely to receive drugs (RR 2.09, 95% CI 1.32-3.31), but, in five trials, women were not more likely to undergo surgery (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.88-1.12). There was no statistically significant difference in urinary incontinence in women who had urodynamics (37%) compared with those undergoing history and clinical examination alone (36%) (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.86-1.21).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: While urodynamics did change clinical decision-making, there was some high-quality evidence that this did not result in lower urinary incontinence rates after treatment.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 407-412 |
| Number of pages | 6 |
| Journal | Neurourology and Urodynamics |
| Volume | 34 |
| Issue number | 5 |
| Early online date | 22 May 2014 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - Jun 2015 |
Keywords
- Cochrane systematic review
- randomized controlled trials
- urodynamics
- urinary continence
- women