Study Protocol for Investigating Urodynamic Testing in Women with Urinary Incontinence
Author Information
Author(s): Megan Murdoch, Elaine McColl, Denise Howel, Mark Deverill, Brian S Buckley, Malcolm Lucas, Christopher R Chapple, Douglas G Tincello, Natalie Armstrong, Cath Brennand, Jing Shen, Luke Vale, Paul Hilton
Primary Institution: Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
Hypothesis
Does invasive urodynamic testing alter treatment decisions and outcomes in women with urinary incontinence?
Conclusion
The pilot study aims to assess the feasibility of a larger trial to determine the clinical utility of invasive urodynamic testing.
Supporting Evidence
- Urinary incontinence affects a significant portion of the population, with estimates ranging from 5% to 69%.
- Current guidelines suggest that invasive urodynamic testing is not necessary before conservative treatments.
- Previous studies have shown low recruitment rates in similar trials, highlighting the need for this pilot study.
Takeaway
This study is trying to find out if a specific test helps doctors make better decisions for women with bladder problems before surgery.
Methodology
A mixed methods pragmatic multicentre feasibility pilot study with randomised trials, qualitative interviews, and a national survey.
Potential Biases
Potential bias in clinician willingness to randomise patients based on their beliefs about the utility of invasive testing.
Limitations
The pilot study may not fully represent the larger population due to its limited sample size and specific recruitment criteria.
Participant Demographics
Women with stress urinary incontinence or mixed urinary incontinence, aged 18 and older.
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
Want to read the original?
Access the complete publication on the publisher's website