Observational studyClinical drug investigation2015
The diagnosis and treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms due to benign prostatic hyperplasia by primary care family physicians in Portugal.
Observational study in Clinical drug investigation, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Correlation between benign prostatic hyperplasia and comorbidities: a systematic analysis integrating global burden of disease and mendelian randomization study.Journal of translational medicine · 2024Article
- Latest developments in the assessment and treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms suggestive of benign prostatic hyperplasia: what is clinically relevant?Clinical drug investigation · 2015Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe shift towards primarily pharmacological management of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) suggestive of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) has led to an increasing proportion of patients being treated in the primary care setting.
methodTwo related studies were undertaken in Portugal. The first was a survey of primary care family physicians regarding the management of LUTS/BPH. The second was a cross-sectional study of the records of patients with suspected or confirmed LUTS/BPH managed by the surveyed physicians.
resultsOne hundred and sixty-three physicians were surveyed between 16 June 2012 and 10 February 2013 and 2,988 patients were identified (mean age 68 years). While 80 % of physicians would order diagnostic tests for patients reporting symptoms, only 2.5 % would initiate treatment based on reported symptoms alone. Only 1 % would refer patients directly to a urologist for diagnosis, and 75 % would only refer patients after an inadequate response to treatment in the primary care setting. Management practices varied according to physicians' age and experience. Nocturia was both the most common and the most bothersome symptom. Erectile dysfunction was reported by 51 % of patients and 81 % had hypertension, hypercholesterolaemia and/or diabetes mellitus. Diagnosis and treatment of LUTS/BPH differed for older patients, those with comorbidities and those with more severe nocturia at presentation.
conclusionPrimary care physicians in Portugal usually diagnose and treat patients with LUTS/BPH rather than refer them to a urologist. Physicians' age and experience, and patients' age, comorbidities and symptom severity affect the management of LUTS/BPH in primary care in Portugal.
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.