Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30963229›Full record

Trial reportWorld journal of urology2020

Monopolar enucleation versus transurethral resection of the prostate for small- and medium-sized (< 80 cc) benign prostate hyperplasia: a prospective analysis.

Dmitry Enikeev, Leonid Rapoport, Magomed Gazimiev, Sergey Allenov, Jasur Inoyatov, Mark Taratkin, Ekaterina Laukhtina, John M Sung, Zhamshid Okhunov, Petr Glybochko

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in World journal of urology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
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

10 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Dmitry EnikeevInstitute for Urology and Reproductive Health, Sechenov University, 2/1 Bolshaya Pirogovskaya St, Moscow, 119991, Russian Federation. dvenikeev@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7169-2209
Leonid RapoportInstitute for Urology and Reproductive Health, Sechenov University, 2/1 Bolshaya Pirogovskaya St, Moscow, 119991, Russian Federation.
Magomed GazimievInstitute for Urology and Reproductive Health, Sechenov University, 2/1 Bolshaya Pirogovskaya St, Moscow, 119991, Russian Federation.
Sergey AllenovInstitute for Urology and Reproductive Health, Sechenov University, 2/1 Bolshaya Pirogovskaya St, Moscow, 119991, Russian Federation.
Jasur InoyatovInstitute for Urology and Reproductive Health, Sechenov University, 2/1 Bolshaya Pirogovskaya St, Moscow, 119991, Russian Federation.
Mark TaratkinInstitute for Urology and Reproductive Health, Sechenov University, 2/1 Bolshaya Pirogovskaya St, Moscow, 119991, Russian Federation.
Ekaterina LaukhtinaInstitute for Urology and Reproductive Health, Sechenov University, 2/1 Bolshaya Pirogovskaya St, Moscow, 119991, Russian Federation.
John M SungDepartment of Urology, University of California, Irvine, USA.
Zhamshid OkhunovDepartment of Urology, University of California, Irvine, USA.
Petr GlybochkoInstitute for Urology and Reproductive Health, Sechenov University, 2/1 Bolshaya Pirogovskaya St, Moscow, 119991, Russian Federation.
Sechenov University · RUUniversity of California, Irvine · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimTo assess efficacy and safety of monopolar enucleation of the prostate (MEP) and to compare it with the current treatment standard for medium-sized prostates, < 80 cc, transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP).

methodsA prospective analysis patients undergoing a surgical procedure for their diagnosis of BPH (benign prostatic hyperplasia) (IPSS > 20, Q

resultsA total of 134 patients were included in the study: 70 underwent MEP and 64 - TURP for BPH (mean prostate volumes were comparable with p = 0.163). The mean surgery time was 44 min in the TURP group and 48.2 min in the MEP group, (p = 0.026). Catheterization time for MEP was 1.7 and 3.2 days for TURP (p < 0.001). Hospital stay for MEP was 3.2 days vs. 4.8 days for TURP (p < 0.001). Both techniques shown comparable efficiency in benign prostatic obstruction relief with IPSS drop in MEP from 23.1 to 5.9 and in TURP group from 22.8 to 7.3, whereas Q

conclusionsOur experience demonstrated that MEP is an effective and safe BPH treatment option combining the efficacy of endoscopic enucleation techniques and accessibility of conventional TURP.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedOperative TimeOrgan SizePostoperative PeriodProspective StudiesProstateProstatectomyProstatic HyperplasiaTransurethral Resection of ProstateTreatment OutcomeBPHEEPEndoscopic enucleation of the prostateMEPMonopolarTURP

Identifiers

PMID30963229
OpenAlexW2939843606

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.