| Title |
Non-neurogenic Chronic Urinary Retention: What Are We Treating?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Current Urology Reports, July 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11934-017-0719-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
John T. Stoffel |
| Abstract |
This review examines current terminology used to define non-neurogenic chronic urinary retention (CUR), describes the pathophysiology of urinary retention, and highlights contemporary diagnostic and treatment algorithms. There is no standardized definition for the condition, but volumes >300 ml are commonly used to describe CUR. It is a clinical diagnosis which does not require urodynamics. Pathophysiologic causes of CUR be from myogenic, neurogenic, bladder outlet obstruction, or a combination of these sources. Treatment algorithms recommend stratifying patients with chronic urinary retention by risk and by symptoms before initiating treatment. Common CUR outcome endpoints need to be better utilized so that treatment modalities can be compared. Non-neurogenic CUR is a heterogeneous condition that has multiple definitions, underlying physiologies, and possible endpoints. Standardization is needed to better understand and treat CUR. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 27 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 19% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 11% |
| Researcher | 3 | 11% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Unknown | 10 | 37% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 41% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 7% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 4% |
| Sports and Recreations | 1 | 4% |
| Engineering | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 11 | 41% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 February 2018.
All research outputs
#7,541,834
of 23,008,860 outputs
Outputs from Current Urology Reports
#272
of 593 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#120,370
of 315,215 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Urology Reports
#9
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,008,860 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 593 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 315,215 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.