ArticleDer Urologe. Ausg. A2014
[Organ and function preservation in prostate cancer].
Article in Der Urologe. Ausg. A, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundCurative treatment for prostate cancer is associated with risks which may adversely influence quality of life. Furthermore, there is a considerable rate of overdiagnosis of tumors which would be non-life-threatening if left untreated. Efforts have been made to reduce overtreatment. DISCUSSION: Beside the traditional conservative symptomatic management especially in elderly patients with meaningful comorbidity, several prostate-sparing or deferred treatment options are currently discussed. For all of them, insufficient data on efficacy and safety are available.
resultsBecause of the required long-term follow-up of large sample sizes, conclusive data will not become available in the near future. Therefore, these treatment options have to be considered experimental to a large degree. This applies both to focally ablative techniques and to active surveillance of prostate cancer in patients with a long further life expectancy. Only in carefully selected patients with favorable tumor-associated risk profiles and high risk of medium-term competing mortality may active surveillance be considered a valid and relatively safe treatment option.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25104234What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.