ArticleProstate cancer and prostatic diseases2019
Utility after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy compared to conventional approaches for localized prostate cancer [socioeconomic perspective study].
Article in Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases, 2019. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of precise nursing service mode on postoperative urinary incontinence prevention in patients with prostate disease.World journal of clinical cases · 2022Article
- Two-year quality of life after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy according to pentafecta criteria and cancer of the prostate risk assessment (CAPRA-S).Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Cost-Effectiveness and Budget Impact of Emerging Minimally Invasive Surgical Treatments for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia.Journal of health economics and outcomes research · 2021Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study presented the utility across approaches (robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) or open radical prostatectomy (ORP)), across disease states after surgery, and also across functional outcomes for localized prostate cancers. The utility was measured using the time trade-off method.
methodsThis survey was based on a scenario that describes the state of health in detail and considers surgical methods, short-term adverse effects following RP, disease-specific conditions, and additional treatments 1 year following RP.
resultsThis study analyzed 393 men; the utility values are as follows: first, health status postoperatively showed that the utility value decreased in patients who underwent ORP versus those who underwent LRP. The utility value for ORP and LRP versus RARP was reduced by ~0.028 (10 days per year) and 0.008 (3 days per year), respectively. Second, the utility value based on adverse effects after RP indicated that erectile dysfunction caused a greater reduction in efficacy than urinary incontinence. Regarding erectile dysfunction and urinary incontinence, the efficacy was reduced to ~0.137 (50 days per year) and 0.111 (41 days per year), respectively, as compared to a health state without adverse effects based on no evidence of disease status.
conclusionsIn conclusion, the disutility was much greater due to the side effects than the disutility due to the difference in the surgical method. In particular, the disutility of erectile dysfunction was bigger than that of the urinary incontinence.
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.