Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31807425›Full record

ArticleTranslational andrology and urology2019

The comparison of transurethral versus suprapubic catheter after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Ze'an Li, Kaiwen Li, Wanhua Wu, Qiong Wang, Xiaoming Ma, Chunhao Lin, Shengmeng Peng, Yiming Lai, Fen Wang, Hai Huang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Translational andrology and urology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. 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.

Ze'an LiDepartment of Urology, Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510120, China.
Kaiwen LiDepartment of Urology, Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510120, China.
Wanhua WuDepartment of Urology, Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510120, China.
Qiong WangDepartment of Urology, Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510120, China.
Xiaoming MaDepartment of Urology, Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510120, China.
Chunhao LinDepartment of Urology, Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510120, China.
Shengmeng PengDepartment of Urology, Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510120, China.
Yiming LaiDepartment of Urology, Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510120, China.
Fen WangCenter for Cancer and Stem Cell Biology, Institute of Biosciences and Technology, Texas A&M Health Science Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA.
Hai HuangDepartment of Urology, Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510120, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe transurethral catheter (TUC) or supra-pubic catheter is commonly used after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). However, the best way of urine drainage after the operation is still controversial.

methodsA comprehensive search of PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Science databases and the reference lists of relevant articles was performed up to July 2019. This systematic review and meta-analysis was performed based on all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and retrospective studies assessing the two techniques.

resultsIn total, nine studies (1,121 patients) were eligible, including three RCTs, one prospective and five retrospective studies. After RARP, postoperative pain was less in suprapubic catheter (SPC) group than TC group, both within 3 days [mean difference (MD): -0.70; 95% confidence interval (CI): -1.37 to -0.02; P=0.04] and 5 days after operation (MD: -0.96; 95% CI: -1.39 to -0.52; P<0.00001). There was no significant difference between SPC and TUC groups, in operation time (MD: 2.58; 95% CI: -5.82 to 10.97; P=0.55) and at rates of both catheterization-associated complication [odds ratio (OR): 1.05; 95% CI: 0.67 to 1.64; P=0.83] and long-term urinary incontinence (OR: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.42 to 1.12; P=0.13).

conclusionsPatients in SPC group suffer from less postoperative pain compared with the TUC group. SPC can be a better alternate of TUC.

Indexed as

Cathetermeta-analysisprostatectomyrobot-assistedsuprapubic

Identifiers

PMID31807425
PMCPMC6842775

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.