ArticleCureus2025
Postoperative Urinary Retention: A Call for Objective Assessment and Standardized Postoperative Protocols.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Postoperative urinary retention (POUR) is a common yet under-recognized source of preventable morbidity after pelvic and gynecologic surgery. Despite its frequency and clinical impact, postoperative bladder function is frequently assessed subjectively, based on patient-reported comfort or the observation of a single "apparently normal" void, rather than through objective post-void residual (PVR) measurement. Studies using postoperative bladder ultrasound have demonstrated that clinically significant residual volumes may occur in the absence of pain or urgency, and observational data associate POUR with urinary tract infection, prolonged or repeated catheterization, impaired recovery, and an increased likelihood of subsequent intervention. Surveys further reveal substantial variation in how clinicians and institutions assess and manage postoperative bladder retention, with no consensus regarding assessment timing, PVR thresholds, or recatheterization criteria, reflecting local practice patterns rather than consolidated standards. In this editorial, we argue that POUR should be regarded as a perioperative safety domain rather than a minor inconvenience, and that standardized postoperative bladder protocols incorporating objective assessment strategies, such as routine or risk-adapted bladder ultrasound and predefined escalation pathways, represent feasible, low-cost interventions associated with improved safety and operational clarity in postoperative care workflows.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.