ReviewDer Urologe. Ausg. A2016
[Rehabilitation of prostate cancer patients : A multidisciplinary consensus].
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. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEven though several specialist groups, including the German Pension Insurance (Deutsche Rentenversicherung) and health insurance funds, participate in the rehabilitation of patients with prostate carcinoma, there is no standardized rehabilitation program available for these patients. Consequently, there is no transparency regarding the services provided within the scope of rehabilitation for the referring physicians to uro-oncological rehabilitation, in particular, neither for physicians at urological acute-care clinics, nor for the patients concerned. Rehabilitation clinics are rather left to their own devices as to which services they provide in the treatment of the respective disease and in social situations, but also with regard to the consulting services offered. PROBLEM: Development of a standard for the rehabilitation of patients with prostate carcinoma, taking into account both specialist circles and self-help groups relevant to this matter.
methodsSpecialist groups, including self-help groups participating in the rehabilitation of patients with prostate cancer, have formed an expert group and developed the present standard. To this end, a thematic unsystematic literature review was carried out in advance to provide an evidence-based foundation.
resultsViews were given with regard to rehabilitation diagnostics, the therapy of urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction, sport and physical exercise therapy, psycho-oncology, and social- and disease-related consulting. In this context, the focus was set on classification as well as on the consensus strength of the respective recommendations.
conclusionAll parties involved in the rehabilitation of prostate cancer patients, as well as the patients and the responsible cost bearers, can now use the standard as an orientation guide.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27246473What 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.