ReviewBJU international2019
Consensus statements on the management of clinically localized prostate cancer from the Hong Kong Urological Association and the Hong Kong Society of Uro-Oncology.
Review in BJU international, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Gender bias in shared decision-making among cancer care guidelines: A systematic review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023Pooled it
- Recommendations on Weight Loss and Healthy Lifestyle in Prostate Cancer Clinical Guidelines: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Pooled it
- Transurethral water vapor therapy (Rezūm) for acute urinary retention with obstructive uropathy: a prospective cohort study with one-year follow-up.Prostate international · 2025Article
- Real-world effectiveness of novel hormonal agents and docetaxel in patients with prostate cancer: A head-to-head comparison.iScience · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo formulate consensus statements to facilitate physician management strategies for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer (PCa) in Hong Kong by jointly convening a panel of 12 experts from the two local professional organizations representing PCa specialists, who had previously established consensus statements on the management of metastatic PCa for the locality.
methodsThrough a series of meetings, the panellists discussed their clinical experience and the published evidence regarding various areas of the management of localized PCa, then drafted consensus statements. At the final meeting, each drafted statement was voted on by every panellist based on its practicability of recommendation in the locality.
resultsA total of 76 consensus statements were ultimately accepted and established by panel voting.
conclusionDerived from the recent evidence and major overseas guidelines, along with local clinical experience and practicability, the consensus statements were aimed to serve as a practical reference for physicians in Hong Kong for the management of localized PCa.
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.