Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26873385›Full record

ReviewDer Urologe. Ausg. A2016

[Localized intermediate- to high-risk prostate cancer].

S Tritschler, U Ganswindt, C G Stief

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Der Urologe. Ausg. A, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 38% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
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.

S TritschlerUrologische Klinik und Poliklinik, Klinikum Großhadern der LMU, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, München, Deutschland. stefan.tritschler@med.uni-munchen.de.
U GanswindtKlinik und Poliklinik für Strahlentherapie und Radioonkologie der LMU, Klinikum Großhadern, München, Deutschland.
C G StiefUrologische Klinik und Poliklinik, Klinikum Großhadern der LMU, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, München, Deutschland.
LMU Klinikum · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNational and international guidelines recommend radical prostatectomy (RP) and radiotherapy (EBRT) as standard treatment for intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer. Survival benefit of RP in prostate cancer has been proven in prospectively randomized trials. In contrast, the benefit of EBRT as well as the direct comparison of EBRT and RP have been investigated in several retrospective analyses, but are limited by typical problems associated with retrospective studies.

resultsMost of the studies comparing RP with EBRT favor RP with regard to overall survival and cancer-specific survival. Especially in young patients with high-grade prostate cancer, RP seems to be superior in comparison with EBRT. These patient are at high risk of a PSA recurrence and subsequently need an additional radiotherapy. Mortality and morbidity related to these both methods are low. Main complications of RP are urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction. In contrast, rectal sequelae, erectile dysfunction, and irritative urinary symptoms are the main cause for postinterventional morbidity in patients after EBRT.

Indexed as

Practice Guidelines as TopicEvidence-Based MedicineGermanyHumansMaleMedical OncologyNeoplasm StagingProstatectomyProstatic NeoplasmsRadiotherapyRisk FactorsTreatment OutcomeExternal beam radiation therapyMorbidityMortalityRadical prostatectomyRadiotherapy

Identifiers

PMID26873385
OpenAlexW2276554462

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.