Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31087122›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of urology2020

Photoselective vaporization of the prostate: study outcomes as a function of risk of bias, conflicts of interest, and industrial sponsorship.

Marian S Wettstein, Clinsy Pazhepurackel, Aline S Neumann, Dixon T S Woon, Jaime O Herrera-Caceres, Marko Kozomara, Cédric Poyet, Tullio Sulser, Girish S Kulkarni, Thomas Hermanns

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article 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 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. Article
  2. 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.

Marian S WettsteinDepartment of Urology, University Hospital of Zurich, University of Zurich, Frauenklinikstrasse 10, 8091, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1378-3625
Clinsy PazhepurackelDepartment of Urology, University Hospital of Zurich, University of Zurich, Frauenklinikstrasse 10, 8091, Zurich, Switzerland.
Aline S NeumannDepartment of Urology, University Hospital of Zurich, University of Zurich, Frauenklinikstrasse 10, 8091, Zurich, Switzerland.
Dixon T S WoonDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, Princess Margaret Hospital, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Jaime O Herrera-CaceresDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, Princess Margaret Hospital, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6793-4404
Marko KozomaraDepartment of Urology, University Hospital of Zurich, University of Zurich, Frauenklinikstrasse 10, 8091, Zurich, Switzerland.
Cédric PoyetDepartment of Urology, University Hospital of Zurich, University of Zurich, Frauenklinikstrasse 10, 8091, Zurich, Switzerland.
Tullio SulserDepartment of Urology, University Hospital of Zurich, University of Zurich, Frauenklinikstrasse 10, 8091, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1059-2305
Girish S KulkarniDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, Princess Margaret Hospital, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Thomas HermannsDepartment of Urology, University Hospital of Zurich, University of Zurich, Frauenklinikstrasse 10, 8091, Zurich, Switzerland. thomas.hermanns@usz.ch.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo investigate the outcomes of comparative studies on photoselective vaporization of the prostate (PVP) as a function of risk of bias (RoB), conflicts of interest (COI), and industrial sponsorship (IS).

methodsWe performed a systematic literature search for comparative studies on PVP [randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized comparative studies (NRCSs)]. Study selection as well as comprehensive assessment of RoB, COIs, and IS were performed in duplicate. The identified studies were further rated by two independent board-certified urologists as either PVP-favourable or PVP-unfavourable. Descriptive statistics were performed among all identified studies and among the subgroups of studies rated as favourable and unfavourable, respectively.

resultsSixty-five studies qualified for inclusion (25 RTCs and 40 NRCSs) of which 56 (86%) were rated favourable and 9 (14%) unfavourable. A majority of all studies mentioned the absence/presence of potential COIs (78%). In contrast, a sponsorship statement was only found in 29% of the investigations. Studies rated favourable demonstrated a higher percentage of COIs (39% versus 22%). IS was exclusively found among favourable studies. Furthermore, a serious or critical RoB was more often found in favourably rated NRCSs.

conclusionsCOIs and IS seem to be associated with favourable study outcomes in comparative studies on PVP. The transparency of the whole research process from study conception to the dissemination of the results has to be further improved to prevent a harmful effect of COIs and IS on the internal validity of studies.

Indexed as

Conflict of InterestLaser TherapyResearch Support as TopicTransurethral Resection of ProstateBiasDisclosureHealth Care SectorHumansLower Urinary Tract SymptomsMaleProstatic HyperplasiaBiasConflict of interestFinancial disclosureLaser therapyProstatic hyperplasia

Identifiers

PMID31087122

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.