Publications by Author: Nicolas S Bodmer

CONTEXT: The role of urodynamic studies (UDSs) in the diagnosis of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) is crucial. Although expert statements and guidelines underline their value for clinical decision-making in various clinical settings, the academic debate as to their impact on patient outcomes continues.

OBJECTIVE: To summarise the evidence from all randomised controlled trials assessing the clinical usefulness of UDS in the management of LUTS.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: For this systematic review, searches were performed without language restrictions in three electronic databases until November 18, 2020. The inclusion criteria were randomised controlled study design and allocation to receive UDS or not prior to any clinical management. Quality assessment was performed by two reviewers independently, using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing the risk of bias. A random-effect meta-analysis was performed on the uniformly reported outcome parameters.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Eight trials were included, and all but two focused on women with pure or predominant stress urinary incontinence (SUI). A meta-analysis of six studies including 942 female patients was possible for treatment success, as defined by the authors (relative risk 1.00, 95% confidence interval: 0.93-1.07), indicating no difference in efficacy when managing women with UDS.

CONCLUSIONS: Although UDSs are not replaceable in diagnostics, since there is no other equivalent method to find out exactly what the lower urinary tract problem is, there are little data supporting its impact on outcomes. Randomised controlled trials have focussed on a small group of women with uncomplicated SUI and showed no added value, but these findings cannot be extrapolated to the overall patient population with LUTS, warranting further well-designed trials.

PATIENT SUMMARY: Despite urodynamics being the gold standard to assess lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), as it is the only method that can specify lower urinary tract dysfunction, more studies assessing the clinical usefulness of urodynamic studies (UDSs) in the management of LUTS are needed. UDS investigation is not increasing the probability of success in the treatment of stress urinary incontinence.

BACKGROUND: Urodynamic investigations have a pivotal role in the diagnosis of lower urinary tract symptoms. Despite expert statements and guidelines supporting their usefulness for clinical decision making in various clinical domains, the academic debate remains controversial.

OBJECTIVE: To provide a metaepidemiological inventory of studies assessing the diagnostic properties of urodynamic investigations.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Systematic searches without language restrictions were performed in (Pre-)Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library from inception until August 31, 2018. Checking of reference lists of included studies and reviews complemented searches. Records were compiled and screened for possible inclusion by reading title and abstracts by two teams of two research fellows. Inclusion criteria were as follows: prospective data collection and urodynamic investigations performed either as a diagnostic test or using a therapy monitoring instrument. No a priori selection on clinical domain was done. Double reading was performed on records marked "included." Extraction into a developed and piloted matrix was performed in duplicate and checked by a third research fellow.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Of each included article, study specifics, objective, study design, type of data collection, clinical domain, type and description of test used, and type of outcome were extracted and attributed to a framework.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Electronic searches retrieved 20 841 records. After screening, 299 abstracts were considered relevant. The main reasons for exclusion were as follows: animal studies, no primary data, editorial/opinion based on published data or reviews, primary objective of the study being not the assessment of urodynamic investigations, and post hoc (opportunistic) correlation studies.

CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is the first comprehensive collection of studies assessing the clinical usefulness of urodynamic investigations. The collection is the starting point for a series of systematic reviews assessing the diagnostic properties of urodynamic investigations.

PATIENT SUMMARY: The usefulness of urodynamic investigations for clinical decision making is under debate. We established an inventory of diagnostic studies on urodynamics to assess the value of urodynamics in various clinical applications.