ReviewF1000Research2016
Proximal hypospadias: we aren't always keeping our promises.
Review in F1000Research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Is cystourethroscopy a crucial preoperative step in severe and complex types of hypospadias?Frontiers in surgery · 2023Article
- Results of two-stage transverse preputial island flap urethroplasty for proximal hypospadias with chordee that mandate division of the urethral plate.Central European journal of urology · 2021Article
- The Success Level of Hypospadias Repair in Adults.Cureus · 2020Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Hypospadias surgery is a humbling art form. The evolution of surgical techniques has made distal hypospadias outcomes favorable, but recent publications suggest that our complication rates for proximal hypospadias are much higher than previously reported. To explain these shortcomings, we examine the literature and focus on the lack of standardized documentation, the subsequent inability to objectify the severity of the phenotype, and the underestimation of complications due to lack of long-term follow up. The variability in surgical technique and the fact that the literature abounds with small case series from single institutions also limits our ability to compare outcomes. We believe that the use of standardized and scored phenotype assessments from diagnosis through the extended postoperative period will allow for improved scientific assessment of outcomes. This will facilitate multi-institution collaboration and tabulation of outcomes, allowing rapid data accumulation and assessment for this rare disorder. As surgeons, we must follow boys through puberty into adulthood and must honestly report our results in order to advance our surgical approach to this complicated problem.
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.