ReviewDer Urologe. Ausg. A2019
[Fake News BPH - what is really true!]
Review in Der Urologe. Ausg. A, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Interventional therapy in benign conditions of the prostate.Der Radiologe · 2020Review
- [The Alken stages-a German-French affair].Der Urologe. Ausg. A · 2020Review
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLower urinary tract symptoms suggestive of benign prostatic hyperplasia (LUTS/BPH) is the fourth most common and the fifth most costly disease in men aged 50 years or older. Despite the high prevalence of LUTS/BPH in clinical practice and evidence-based guideline recommendations, there are still plenty of misconceptions on the terminology and pathophysiology of the disease, leading to false assumptions and malpractice.
objectivesListing of commonly used false assumptions and clarification of the correct terminology and pathophysiology. MATERIALS AND
methodsCritical reflection of 12 selected fake news based on PubMed search.
resultsAverage prostate weight in healthy men is 20 g but varies between 8-40 g. The BPH-disease does not progress in stages; therefore, the BPH-classifications according Alken or Vahlensieck should not be used anymore. There is only a weak and inconsistent relationship between bladder outlet obstruction (BOO) and prostate size, diverticula/pseudo-diverticula, postvoid residual, urinary retention or renal insufficiency, which is too unreliable for BOO-diagnosis in the individual patient. Urethro-cystoscopy with grading of the degrees of occlusion of the prostatic urethra and bladder trabeculation is insufficient for BOO-diagnosis. There is no clinically relevant reduction of BOO with licensed BPH-drugs and no convincing data that prostate resection (TURP) has to be complete until the surgical capsule in order to obtain optimal results.
conclusionsThe reasons for the persistent use of wrong terminology and pathophysiology are diverse. One reason is lack of implementation of evidence-based guidelines into clinical practice due to lack of knowledge, individual beliefs, costs, availability and reimbursement policies. Another reason is the increasing focus on oncology, coupled with underrepresented education and training on BPH.
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.