ArticleAnnals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England2014
Patient reported outcome measures in male incontinence surgery.
Article in Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Physiotherapy for Urinary Incontinence After Radical Prostatectomy: Current Evidence and Therapeutic Challenges.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Latest Evidence on Post-Prostatectomy Urinary Incontinence.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Hypothesis That Urethral Bulb (Corpus Spongiosum) Plays an Active Role in Male Urinary Continence.Advances in urology · 2016Review
- Telephone - delivered quality of life after 365 male stress urinary incontinence (SUI) operations.International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of UrologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPatient reported outcome measures (PROMs) were used to evaluate outcomes of the artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) and the AdVance™ (American Medical Systems, Minnetonka, MN, US) male sling system (AVMS) for the symptomatic management of male stress urinary incontinence.
methodsAll male patients with stress urinary incontinence referred to our specialist clinic over a two-year period completed the ICIQ-UI SF (International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire on Urinary Incontinence Short Form) and the ICIQ-MLUTS LF (International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire on Male Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Long Form) at consultation as well as at subsequent follow-up appointments. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test for non-parametric paired data was used for pre and postoperative comparisons. The chi-squared test was used for categorical variables.
resultsThirty-seven patients (forty surgical cases) completed a preoperative and at least one follow-up questionnaire. There was a statistically significant improvement in PROMs postoperatively, regardless of mode of surgery (p<0.01). Analysis of the ICIQ-MLUTS LF showed that patients with higher preoperative scores (>25) had greater improvement with an AUS than with the AVMS (p<0.01).
conclusionsThis prospective study shows that completion and collection of PROMs as part of routine clinical practice is achievable and useful in the assessment of male stress incontinence surgery. PROMs are important instruments to assess effectiveness of healthcare intervention and they are useful adjuncts in surgical studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.