ArticleWorld journal of urology2018
Urologists' attitudes to sexual complications of LUTS/BPH treatments.
Article in World journal of urology, 2018. 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Perceptions and Practice of Urologists in Saudi Arabia Regarding Sexual Complications Related to LUTS/BPH Management.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- High regional variation in prostate surgery for benign prostatic hyperplasia in Switzerland.PloS one · 2021Article
- The Complex Relationship Between Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms and Sexual Health.Current urology reports · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionMany LUTS/BPH treatments currently available may affect sexual function (SD). We wished to assess urologists' attitude and practice in this area.
methodsAttendees of an international meeting were randomly selected, interviewed and stratified by professional status and LUTS/BPH cases seen per month. There were four questions: treatment options offered, frequency of discussing erectile dysfunction (ED) with each treatment, frequency of discussing ejaculatory dysfunction (EjD) with each treatment, and offering alternative treatment based on the risks of sexual dysfunction.
results199 of the 245 interviewed (81%) were urologists. The most common treatments offered were α-blockers (99.5%), 5-ARI (95.0%) and TURP (92.5%). About 70% of the specialists discuss ED before α-blockers (not known to cause ED). Regarding EjD, 70% discuss this prior to prescribing α-blockers, 60% before 5-ARI therapy, while 80% before TURP. A significant minority fails to discuss this complication in all areas. Many respondents do not routinely discuss alternative therapies on the risk of SD. The higher the caseload, the less likely was a urologist to offer alternative therapies, with 37% of urologists seeing over 30 LUTS/BPH patients per month stating they would "Not at all often" offer alternative therapies for this reason.
conclusionsThere is a significant discrepancy in attitudes to counselling patients on SD related to LUTS/BPH treatments. This may, in some cases, affect the validity of consent to the treatment. Most urologists do not discuss alternative treatments with patients based on the risks of different outcomes and complications, and this seems more marked in those with the busier practices. This may sit ill with the concept of personalised healthcare.
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.