Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27746897›Full record

ReviewF1000Research2016

Proximal hypospadias: we aren't always keeping our promises.

Christopher J Long, Douglas A Canning

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
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

2 authors.

Christopher J LongDivision of Urology, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Douglas A CanningDivision of Urology, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

hypospadiashypospadias surgeryproximal hypospadias

Identifiers

PMID27746897
PMCPMC5040151

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.