ArticleWorld journal of urology2021
Use of EPIC 26 to identify men likely to benefit from surgical interventions for urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy.
Article in World journal of urology, 2021. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Insights into urinary incontinence after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: urgent urinary incontinence or stress urinary incontinence.World journal of urology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo examine outcomes of surgical procedures for urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy (post-RP UI) and to identify patients who may benefit from a surgical intervention to treat post-RP UI.
methodsA retrospective chart review identified men who underwent radical prostatectomy (RP) from July 2004 through July 2016 at our institution. Cases underwent surgical interventions for UI following RP. Controls had RP during the study period but did not have an intervention for UI following RP. We used the UI scale of the Expanded Prostate Index Composite (EPIC) 26 to: (1) quantify post-RP UI before and after UI intervention overall and for specific surgical procedures; (2) evaluate the significance of improvement in post-RP UI before and after UI intervention and (3) identify controls with levels of post-RP UI that were comparable to the cases.
resultsTwo thousand nine hundred and sixty-eight RPs were performed; 48 patients underwent further surgical intervention (39 slings, 9 artificial urinary sphincter, AUS). For 20 cases with complete EPIC UI data (15 slings, 5 AUS), the median (IQR) pre-UI intervention score was 27.00 (IQR 22.75-42.75). Improvement was significant overall (p < 0.001) and for slings (p = 0.001). 71/2085 controls had post-prostatectomy UI scores ≤ 27.0, suggesting that they may have benefited from a post-RP surgical intervention for UI.
conclusionData support the effectiveness of surgery to treat post-RP UI. A sizeable population of unidentified men may benefit from a surgical intervention to treat urinary incontinence after RP.
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.