Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28585573›Full record

SynthesisProstate cancer and prostatic diseases2017

Tools for predicting patient-reported outcomes in prostate cancer patients undergoing radical prostatectomy: a systematic review of prognostic accuracy and validity.

M E O'Callaghan, E Raymond, J Campbell, A D Vincent, K Beckmann, D Roder, S Evans, J McNeil, J Millar, J Zalcberg and 2 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Anti-Cancer Effects ofCurrent urology · 2018
    Article
  11. 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

12 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

M E O'CallaghanUrology Unit, SA Health, Repatriation General Hospital, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
E RaymondUrology Unit, SA Health, Repatriation General Hospital, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
J CampbellJoanna Briggs Institute, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
A D VincentFreemasons Foundation Centre for Men's Health, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
K BeckmannSouth Australian Prostate Cancer Clinical Outcomes Collaborative (SA-PCCOC), Adelaide, SA, Australia.
D RoderCentre for Population Health Research, University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
S EvansDepartment of Epidemiology & Preventative Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
J McNeilDepartment of Epidemiology & Preventative Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
J MillarDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Alfred Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
J ZalcbergDepartment of Epidemiology & Preventative Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
M BorgSouth Australian Prostate Cancer Clinical Outcomes Collaborative (SA-PCCOC), Adelaide, SA, Australia.
K MorettiSouth Australian Prostate Cancer Clinical Outcomes Collaborative (SA-PCCOC), Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Monash University · AUFreemasons Foundation Centre for Men's Health · AUUniversity of Adelaide · AUUniversity of South Australia · AUAlfred Health · AURepatriation General Hospital · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRadical prostatectomy is a common surgical procedure performed to treat prostate cancer. Patient-reported outcomes after surgery include urinary incontinence, erectile dysfunction, decreased quality of life and psychological effects. Predictive tools to assess the likelihood of an individual experiencing various patient-reported outcomes have been developed to aid decision-making when selecting treatment.

methodsA systematic review was undertaken to identify all papers describing tools for the prediction of patient-reported outcome measures in men with prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy. To be eligible for inclusion, papers had to provide a summary measure of accuracy. PubMed and EMBASE were searched from July 2007. Title/abstract screening, and full-text review were undertaken by two reviewers, while data extraction and critical appraisal was performed by a single reviewer.

resultsThe search strategy identified 3217 potential studies, of which 191 progressed to full-text review and 14 were included. From these studies, 27 tools in total were identified, of which 18 predicted urinary symptoms, six predicted erectile function and one predicted freedom from a group of three outcomes ('trifecta') (biochemical recurrence, incontinence and erectile dysfunction). On the basis of tool accuracy (>70%) and external validation, two tools predicting incontinence and two tools predicting erectile dysfunction are ready for implementation.

conclusionsA small number of tools for the prediction of patient-reported outcomes following radical prostatectomy have been developed. Four tools were found to have adequate accuracy and validation and are ready for implementation for the prediction of urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction.

Indexed as

PrognosisErectile DysfunctionHumansMalePatient Reported Outcome MeasuresProstatectomyProstatic NeoplasmsQuality of LifeUrinary Incontinence

Identifiers

PMID28585573
OpenAlexW2621837370

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.