Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30057121›Full record

ArticleSexual medicine2018

Attitudes Toward Penile Transplantation Among Urologists and Health Professionals.

Bobby Najari, Ryan Flannigan, Jackson Hobgood, Darius Paduch

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Sexual medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
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

4 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Bobby NajariNew York University, New York, NY, USA.
Ryan FlanniganWeill Cornell Medicine, Department of Urology, New York, NY, USA.
Jackson HobgoodEast Tennessee State University, Johnson City, TN, USA.
Darius PaduchWeill Cornell Medicine, Department of Urology, New York, NY, USA; Consulting Research Services, Inc, North Bergen, NJ, USA. Electronic address: dap2013@med.cornell.edu.
Cornell University · USEast Tennessee State University · USNew York University · USWeill Cornell Medicine · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionPenile transplantation, in its infancy, has the potential to reestablish functional outcomes for men with penile loss and disfigurement. However, significant bioethical considerations are pertinent, and systematic discussions are necessary to safely progress implementation.

aimTo determine the attitude of health practitioners toward the penile transplant and identify the key aspects of concern pertinent to the operation and clinical care.

methodsHealth care professionals from the United States responded to either email invitation, web link, or social media post on Facebook to complete a questionnaire investigating perceptions and attitudes toward penile transplantation.

main outcome measuresRespondents' attitude toward penile transplantation, their own perceived important functions of the penis, and concerns about performing a penile transplantation. Respondents' previous exposure to visceral transplants, to penile disfigurement, and information about penile transplants were used as independent factors in analysis.

resultsAmong 412 health care professionals who responded to the questionnaire, 95.9% were in favor of visceral organ transplant, but only 64.3% were in favor of penile transplantation. The results showed that 61.3% of respondents first learned about the penile transplant from mass media, whereas only 37.5% had been exposed through a scientific journal, formal lecture, or a professional colleague. Younger health professionals and those exposed through professional forums surrounding penile transplantation were more likely to be in favor of the procedure (P < .001). The most important functions of the penis were identified by respondents as being sexual function (role in sexual activity) and gender identity (being a man) with rates of 86.4% and 85.3%, respectively (P < .001). Barriers identified by respondents included the use of immunosuppression and the potential subsequent effect on healthcare resource utilization. Reading an excerpt about penile trauma in war during the questionnaire improved acceptance of penile transplantation (P = .05).

conclusionPenile transplantation is accepted by most health professionals surveyed. Younger respondents and those informed through professional outlets are more favorable toward penile transplantation. Anticipated limitations include the risk of immunosuppression, lack of available donors, and the effect on healthcare utilization. Najari B, Flannigan R, Hobgood J, et al. Attitudes Toward Penile Transplantation Among Urologists and Health Professionals. Sex Med 2018;6:316-323.

Indexed as

Genitourinary TraumaPenile ReconstructionPenile TransplantPenile Trauma

Identifiers

PMID30057121
PMCPMC6302119
OpenAlexW2884583771

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.