Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30701330›Full record

ReviewCurrent urology reports2019

Damage Control Considerations During IPP Surgery.

David Y Yang, Tobias S Kohler

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current urology reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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

2 authors.

David Y YangDepartment of Urology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA.
Tobias S KohlerDepartment of Urology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA. Kohler.Tobias@mayo.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewThis review summarizes the latest reports in inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) complication management. RECENT

findingsIPP complications are rare, and reports are limited to retrospective studies. However, recent multi-institutional studies and use of national databases have provided further insight into risk factors for complications. Guidance on complication management is largely limited to techniques recommended by experts within the field. American Urological Association guidelines place IPP implantation as a first line erectile dysfunction treatment. However, the majority of cases are performed by low-volume (≤ 4 cases/year) surgeons. Herein, we summarize the IPP literature and our personal experience to provide guidance on managing IPP complications.

Indexed as

DilatationErectile DysfunctionHumansMaleNecrosisPenile ImplantationPenile ProsthesisPenisPostoperative ComplicationsRisk FactorsUrethraComplicationsErectile dysfunctionInflatable penile prosthesisOutcomes

Identifiers

PMID30701330

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.