Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,138

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Prognostic Value of Urodynamic Testing in Myelodysplastic Patients

McGuire, Edward J., Woodside, Jeffrey R., Borden, Thomas A., Weiss, Robert M.·1981·Journal of Urology

Abstract

We herein describe the clinical progress of 42 myelodysplastic patients studied urodynamically and followed for a mean of 7.1 years. Urodynamic evaluation included urethral pressure profilometry, simultaneous determination of urethral pressure, intravesical pressure and external anal or external urethral sphincter electromyography with fluoroscopic voiding cystourethrography. Assessment of urethral function showed 36 patients (86 per cent) with an open vesical outlet and nonfunctional proximal urethral. Cystometrography revealed that 7 of 42 patients (17 per cent) had reflex detrusor activity: 4 with coordinated micturition and 3 with detrusor-sphincter dyssynergia. Thirty-five patients (83 per cent) had areflexic detrusor dysfunction: 5 with atomic detrusor response and 30 with a progressive increase in pressure with increasing volume. The intravesical pressure at the time of urethral leakage was 40 cm. water or less in 20 patients and at pressures greater than this value in 22 patients. No patient in the low pressure group had vesicoureteral reflux and only 2 showed ureteral dilatation on excretory urography. In contrast, of the patients in the higher pressure group 15 (68 per cent) showed vesicoureteral reflux and 18 (81 per cent) showed ureteral dilatation on excretory urography. Thus, a striking relationship between the urethral closure pressure and intravesical pressure at the time of urethral leakage and the clinical course in this group of myelodysplastic patients is demonstrated. Every patient with a normally closed vesical outlet was continent on intermittent catheterization and an anticholinergic agent, while only 60 per cent of patients with open bladder outlets similarly treated achieved good urinary control and none was dry. An artificial sphincter device would seem to be a reasonable method to achieve urinary control in the latter patients but the detrusor response to filling also must be considered. Detrusor hypertonia should be controlled or controllable before a sphincter augmenting device can be used safely. Treatment options for patients with high urethral closure pressures include intermittent catheterization and anticholinergic medications or a sphincter ablative procedure to decrease the outlet resistance combined with anticholinergic therapy and implantation of an artificial sphincter. However, only longer followup will determine if these therapeutic regimens will prevent upper urinary tract deterioration.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0022-5347(17)54449-3

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 1,138

Metadata

Authors
McGuire, E. J., Woodside, J. R., Borden, T. A., & Weiss, R. M.
Venue
Journal of Urology
Published
1981-08
Volume
126
Issue
2
Pages
205-209
ISSN
  • 0022-5347 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-3792
OpenAlex
W1990227511
Cited by
1,138
References
0
FWCI
19.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Prognostic Value of Urodynamic Testing in Myelodysplastic Patients. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0022-5347(17)54449-3
The paper
McGuire, E. J., Woodside, J. R., Borden, T. A., & Weiss, R. M. (1981). Prognostic Value of Urodynamic Testing in Myelodysplastic Patients. Journal of Urology. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5347(17)54449-3

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.