4.0 Article

Assessment of nocturnal polyuria in patients with spinal cord injury at three different mobilization phases: A multicenter cross-sectional study

Journal

JOURNAL OF SPINAL CORD MEDICINE
Volume -, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/10790268.2021.2009674

Keywords

Neurogenic bladder; Nocturia; Nocturnal polyuria index; Spinal cord injury

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A study on nocturnal polyuria prevalence in spinal cord injury patients found no significant differences in nocturnal polyuria among patients in different phases of mobilization. Night and 24-hour urine volumes also did not differ significantly among the groups.
Objective To determine the prevalence of nocturnal polyuria (NP) in patients with spinal cord injury (SCI) during three different particular phases, and investigate the impact of injury level and injury type on the prevalence of NP. Design A cross-sectional study. Setting Neurogenic Bladder Study Group from six different rehabilitation centers across the country. Participants 40 patients with SCI. Outcome measures Patients were divided into three groups according to mobilization phase; 1st group included patients confined to bed (n = 14), 2nd group included patients sitting on a wheelchair (n = 19) and 3rd group included patients standing with an assistive ambulation device (n = 7). NP was assessed by nocturnal polyuria index (NPi) and nocturnal urine production (NUP) indexes. Results No significant difference was found between the groups (P = 0.312 for NPi and P = 0.763 for NUP) in terms of the presence of NP according to their mobilization phase. The night and 24-hour urine volumes showed no significant difference between the groups (P = 0.907 and P = 0.395 respectively). The NPi and NUP values did not show a significant difference between male and female patients (P = 0.826, P = 0.364 respectively), patients with the injury level of >= T6 and

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available