{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.013961605584642234, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.239130434782608, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Half the message is just mess: judging the value of urodynamics based on partial or poor‐quality results

The debate on the value of urodynamics (UDS) in the patient pathway continues in the literature. It has become increasingly apparent that partial quotation of some clinical trial results is giving an impression opposite to the conclusions of the studies quoted. We wish to highlight these errors in interpretation and their potential to mislead, and also to point the reader towards recently published research questions that propose to clarify current uncertainties.