Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26813683›Full record

ReviewTranslational andrology and urology2015

Couples-based interventions following prostate cancer treatment: a narrative review.

Christian J Nelson, Jessica C Emanu, Isabelle Avildsen

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Translational andrology and urology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. A systematic review and meta-analysis of couple-based intervention on sexuality and the quality of life of cancer patients and their partners.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2020
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Christian J NelsonDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA.
Jessica C EmanuDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA.
Isabelle AvildsenDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA.
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center · US

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Nicholas D Socci · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
Helping Men Adhere to Sexual Rehabilitation Following Prostate Cancer SurgeryR01CA190636 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INST CAN RESEARCH · PI NELSON, CHRISTIAN J · 2016 to 2021
$3.4M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748NCI NIH HHS R01 CA190636
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSexual dysfunction following prostate cancer (PC) treatment often results in sexual avoidance and a loss of sexual intimacy, which can lead to relationship distress. This review aims to evaluate six studies intended to address relational and sexual intimacy following PC treatment and discuss methodological concerns which may help produce more effective interventions.

methodsElectronic databases used to conduct literature searches included Medline, PsychINFO, and Web of Science. Studies were included if they were: randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using samples of men diagnosed with PC of any stage, had a psychosocial intervention, and addressed at least one sexual and relational outcome.

resultsAs a whole, the literature has produced mixed results. While significant findings were reported, many of the primary hypotheses were not achieved. The six studies show that men with PC may benefit from education and support related to treatment options for erectile dysfunction (ED), whereas their partners may benefit more from interventions focused on relational issues. Important methodological limitations included: selection of general outcome measures as opposed to measures specific to sexuality or intimacy outcomes, lack of assessing distress or bother of the patient/couples as study entry criteria, heterogeneity of study populations, and lack of innovative intervention content as the current studies tested standard educational interventions, sex therapies techniques, and couples therapy strategies with only marginal success.

conclusionsInterventions based on innovative theoretical approaches as well as study designs that address the outlined methodological limitations are needed in this area.

Indexed as

erectile dysfunction (ED)erectile rehabilitationProstate cancer (PC)sexual function

Identifiers

PMID26813683
PMCPMC4708124
OpenAlexW2173358701

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.