Interventions to decrease pain and anxiety in patients undergoing urodynamic study: Is there any clear evidence? A systematic review and meta-analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Urodynamic study (UDS) is a valuable diagnostic procedure for assessing lower urinary tract symptoms but often induces pain and anxiety due to its invasive nature. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of various interventions to reduce pain and anxiety in patients undergoing UDS. A comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed, ScienceDirect, EMBASE, and EBSCO up to October 2024. Twenty-two studies, including randomized controlled trials and observational studies, were included. Risk of bias was assessed using RoB 2, ROBINS-I, and the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. Meta-analysis using Review Manager 5.3 showed that providing detailed information to patients significantly reduced pain (SMD: 0.84; 95% CI: 0.20–1.48; p = 0.01), while music therapy and anesthetic agents did not yield significant effects. The overall pooled effect on pain was not statistically significant. For anxiety, the pooled analysis indicated a modest but significant reduction (SMD: 0.57; 95% CI: 0.11–1.02; p = 0.04), despite high heterogeneity. Interventions such as mindfulness, aromatherapy, and heating pads showed potential in individual studies but were not included in meta-analysis due to limited data. The findings highlight that while certain interventions may alleviate discomfort during UDS, evidence remains inconsistent. Well-designed, large-scale trials are needed to establish standardized approaches for enhancing patient comfort during UDS.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it