Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33461781›Full record

SynthesisEuropean urology2021

A Systematic Review of Patients' Values, Preferences, and Expectations for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Male Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms.

Sachin Malde, Roland Umbach, Jessica R Wheeler, Lyubov Lytvyn, Jean-Nicholas Cornu, Mauro Gacci, Christian Gratzke, Thomas R W Herrmann, Charalampos Mamoulakis, Malte Rieken and 5 more

Open access · greenAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European urology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 55 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
55citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
18.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

55 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 120 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Self-management of male urinary symptoms: qualitative findings from a primary care trial.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2026
    Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Nutrients · 2024
    Trial
  9. Lower urinary tract symptoms in men: the TRIUMPH cluster RCT.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2024
    Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Efficacy ofThe world journal of men's health · 2026
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Best of 2025 in prostate cancer and prostatic diseases.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2026
    Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors at 13 institutions in 8 countries.

Sachin MaldeDepartment of Urology, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Roland UmbachDepartment of Urology, Klinikum Sindelfingen-Bӧblingen, Sindelfingen, Germany.
Jessica R WheelerBristol Randomised Trials Collaboration, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK; Bristol Urological Institute, North Bristol NHS Trust, Southmead Hospital, Bristol, UK.
Lyubov LytvynDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Jean-Nicholas CornuDepartment of Urology, Charles-Nicolle University Hospital, Rouen Cedex, France.
Mauro GacciDepartment of Minimally Invasive and Robotic Urologic Surgery and Kidney Transplantation, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Christian GratzkeDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Thomas R W HerrmannDepartment of Urology, Kantonsspital Frauenfeld, Frauenfeld, Switzerland.
Charalampos MamoulakisDepartment of Urology, University General Hospital of Heraklion, University of Crete Medical School, Heraklion, Crete, Greece.
Malte RiekenUniversity of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Mark J SpeakmanDepartment of Urology, Taunton & Somerset Hospital, Taunton, UK.
Stavros GravasDepartment of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, School of Health Sciences, University of Thessaly, Larissa, Greece.
Marcus J DrakeBristol Urological Institute, North Bristol NHS Trust, Southmead Hospital, Bristol, UK; Translational Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Gordon H GuyattDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada; Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Kari A O TikkinenDepartment of Urology, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland; Department of Surgery, South Karelia Central Hospital, Lappeenranta, Finland. Electronic address: kari.tikkinen@helsinki.fi.
Impact · CANorth Bristol NHS Trust · GBGuy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust · GBHôpital Charles-Nicolle · FRKantonsspital Frauenfeld · CHKlinikum Sindelfingen-Böblingen · DETaunton & Somerset NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity Medical Center Freiburg · DEUniversity of Basel · CHUniversity of Crete · GRUniversity of Florence · ITUniversity of Helsinki · FIUniversity of Thessaly · GR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

contextUnderstanding men's values and preferences in the context of personal, physical, emotional, relational, and social factors is important in optimising patient counselling, facilitating treatment decision-making, and improving guideline recommendations.

objectiveTo systematically review the available evidence regarding the values, preferences, and expectations of men towards the investigation and treatment (conservative, pharmacological, and surgical) of male lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS). EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We searched electronic databases until August 31, 2020 for quantitative and qualitative studies that reported values and preferences regarding the investigation and treatment of LUTS in men. We assessed the quality of evidence and risk of bias using the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) and GRADE Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research (CERQual) approaches. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: We included 25 quantitative studies, three qualitative studies, and one mixed-methods study recruiting 9235 patients. Most men reported urodynamic testing to be acceptable, despite discomfort or embarrassment, as it significantly informs treatment decisions (low certainty evidence). Men preferred conservative and less risky treatment options, but the preference varied depending on baseline symptom severity and the risk/benefit characteristics of the treatment (moderate certainty). Men preferred pharmacological treatments with a low risk of erectile dysfunction and those especially improving urgency incontinence (moderate certainty). Other important preference considerations included reducing the risk of acute urinary retention or surgery (moderate certainty).

conclusionsMen prefer lower-risk management options that have fewer sexual side effects and are primarily effective at improving urgency incontinence and nocturia. Overall, the evidence was rated to be of low to moderate certainty. This review can facilitate the treatment decision-making process and improve the trustworthiness of guideline recommendations. PATIENT SUMMARY: We thoroughly reviewed the evidence addressing men's values and preferences regarding the management of urinary symptoms and found that minimising adverse effects is particularly important. Further research to understand other factors that matter to men is required.

Indexed as

Erectile DysfunctionLower Urinary Tract SymptomsNocturiaTransurethral Resection of ProstateHumansMaleMotivationDiagnosticsEvidenceExpectationsGuidelineInvestigationLower urinary tract symptomsManagementPatientTreatmentValues and preferences

Identifiers

PMID33461781
OpenAlexW3118911040

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.