ArticleInternational journal of impotence research2021
Comparing the Italian and North American prospective registries on penile prosthesis surgery: are there relevant differences in treatment indications and patients' management?
Article in International journal of impotence research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 20 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Previous studies have shown discrepancies among countries in terms of treatment indications and patients' management due to different health care policies. Penile prosthesis implantation (PPI) is a highly effective treatment for erectile dysfunction (ED), which may have different accessibility according to the type of health system. We compared clinical characteristics of patients included in two national registries on PPI to investigate the influence of different health care systems on treatment indication and accessibility. The multicenter Italian Nationwide Systematic Inventarization of Surgical Treatment for ED (INSIST-ED) Registry and the multicenter Prospective Registry of Outcomes with Penile Prosthesis for Erectile Restoration (PROPPER), respectively for Italy and North America were considered. Clinical characteristics of patients included in both registries were compared using Wilcoxon Rank Sum test and the Pearson's Chi square test. Patients submitted to PPI in Italy are significantly younger (age: 61.2 vs. 63.8 years; p ≤ 0.001) compared with North America. The majority of patients are treated for post-radical prostatectomy ED in both registries (Italy: 31%; North America: 27%), although diabetes and cardiovascular diseases are more frequent reasons for PPI in the PROPPER registry (p ≤ 0.001), reflecting differences in disease prevalence among countries. In North America a non-hydraulic implant is considered only in 1% of cases as compared with 3% in Italy (p ≤ 0.001). In terms of postoperative management, a compressive surgical dressing (98% vs. 24%; p ≤ 0.001) is a more common strategy in North America. Finally, in Italy most surgeries are performed in a public hospital (82%), while the private setting (70.8%) is more common in North America (p ≤ 0.001). These findings suggest differences in health care systems between Italy and North America. A system like the American one would guarantee easier access to PPI in countries where the National Health System is mainly based on reimbursement to public hospital settings and where patients choosing private settings have to pay by themselves.
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.