[The patient after radical prostatectomy: complexity and efficiency of a urological rehabilitation program].

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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

1. [Social medical/public health assessment of the ability to work regarding urological and urooncological diseases].Der Urologe. Ausg. A · 2017
   Review
2. [Not Available].Der Urologe. Ausg. A · 2016
   Article
3. [Specialist uro-oncological rehabilitation after treatment for prostate cancer--update 2015. Position statement of the working group on "rehabilitation of urological and nephrological diseases" of the German Society of Urology with respect to current S3 guidelines].Der Urologe. Ausg. A · 2015
   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

1 author.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

Indexed as