Urodynamic studies are commonly performed in women before surgery for stress urinary incontinence, but there is no good evidence that they improve outcomes. We performed a multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial involving women with uncomplicated, demonstrable stress urinary incontinence to compare outcomes after preoperative office evaluation and urodynamic tests or evaluation only. The primary outcome was treatment success at 12 months, defined as a reduction in the score on the Urogenital Distress Inventory of 70% or more and a response of “much better” or “very much better” on the Patient Global Impression of Improvement. The predetermined noninferiority margin was 11 percentage points. A total of 630 women were randomly assigned to undergo office evaluation with urodynamic tests or evaluation only (315 per group); the proportion in whom treatment was successful was 76.9% in the urodynamic-testing group versus 77.2% in the evaluation-only group (difference, −0.3 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, −7.5 to 6.9), which was consistent with noninferiority. There were no significant between-group differences in secondary measures of incontinence severity, quality of life, patient satisfaction, rates of positive provocative stress tests, voiding dysfunction, or adverse events. Women who underwent urodynamic tests were significantly less likely to receive a diagnosis of overactive bladder and more likely to receive a diagnosis of voiding-phase dysfunction, but these changes did not lead to significant between-group differences in treatment selection or outcomes. For women with uncomplicated, demonstrable stress urinary incontinence, preoperative office evaluation alone was not inferior to evaluation with urodynamic testing for outcomes at 1 year. (Funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00803959.)

The authors perform a review of the literature pertinent to the question, "What makes a good clinical teacher in medicine?" After framing the question, based on discussions of their own experiences with clinical teachers, the authors performed a search of the literature pertinent to the question, "What are the qualities of a good clinical teacher in medicine?" Between July and December, 2006, they reviewed titles from Index Medicus (1909-1966), PubMed (1966 to the present), PubMed Related Articles, and referenced articles. The initial selections were chosen by scanning pre-1966 Index Medicus title lists and post-1966 abstracts. Chosen articles were then read in their entirety, and those which described specific characteristics of clinical teachers were selected for inclusion. Qualitative analysis was used to identify themes. From 4,914 titles, 68 articles were selected for analysis-26 published before 1966, and 42 published after 1966. Four hundred eighty descriptors were identified and grouped into 49 themes, which were clustered into three main categories: physician, teacher, and human characteristics. Echoing the authors' intuitive descriptions, noncognitive characteristics dominated the descriptions and themes. Excellent clinical teaching, although multifactorial, transcends ordinary teaching and is characterized by inspiring, supporting, actively involving, and communicating with students. Faculty development programs and future research should focus on development of the noncognitive attributes of clinical teachers, as well as the knowledge and skills associated with effective teaching.