Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33691670›Full record

SynthesisBMC urology2021

A systematic review of penile prosthesis infection and meta-analysis of diabetes mellitus role.

Lucas Mira Gon, Caio César Citatini de Campos, Brunno Raphael Iamashita Voris, Luís Augusto Passeri, Adriano Fregonesi, Cássio Luís Zanettini Riccetto

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC urology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.0field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 48 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Lucas Mira GonDivision of Urology of Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Hospital de Clinicas, University of Campinas - UNICAMP, Rua Vital Brazil, 250, Campinas, SP, 13083-590, Brazil. lucasmgon@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4686-2138
Caio César Citatini de CamposDivision of Urology of Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Hospital de Clinicas, University of Campinas - UNICAMP, Rua Vital Brazil, 250, Campinas, SP, 13083-590, Brazil.
Brunno Raphael Iamashita VorisDivision of Urology of Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Hospital de Clinicas, University of Campinas - UNICAMP, Rua Vital Brazil, 250, Campinas, SP, 13083-590, Brazil.
Luís Augusto PasseriDivision of Urology of Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Hospital de Clinicas, University of Campinas - UNICAMP, Rua Vital Brazil, 250, Campinas, SP, 13083-590, Brazil.
Adriano FregonesiDivision of Urology of Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Hospital de Clinicas, University of Campinas - UNICAMP, Rua Vital Brazil, 250, Campinas, SP, 13083-590, Brazil.
Cássio Luís Zanettini RiccettoDivision of Urology of Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Hospital de Clinicas, University of Campinas - UNICAMP, Rua Vital Brazil, 250, Campinas, SP, 13083-590, Brazil.
Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP) · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInfection is the most feared complication of a penile prosthesis. Diabetes mellitus (DM) is widely known to increase the risk of several infections, but its role in the penile prosthesis is still controversial. This systematic review aims to show the contemporary scenario of penile prosthesis infection and present a meta-analysis about DM contribution to penile prosthesis infection.

methodsThe review was performed with no language or time limitation, including ten databases. The included articles were about the male population who received a penile prosthesis with no model restriction, with a minimum follow up of 1 year, and outcomes adequately reported.

resultsThe mean infection incidence of penile prosthesis ranged from 0.33 to 11.4%. In early 2000, the general incidence of infection was 3 to 5%, then, the introduction of coated materials decreased it to 0.3 to 2.7%. The meta-analysis showed that diabetes mellitus is related to an increased risk of penile prosthesis infection with an odds ratio of 1.53 (95% CI 1.15-2.04).

conclusionsPenile prosthesis infection decreased in the last decades but remains a significant cause of reoperation, and it is related to lower prosthesis survival. Meta-analysis concludes that diabetes mellitus is related to a higher risk of penile prosthesis infection.

Indexed as

Diabetes ComplicationsHumansMalePenile ProsthesisProsthesis-Related InfectionsDiabetes mellitusInfectionMeta-analysisPenile implantsPenile prosthesisReview

Identifiers

PMID33691670
PMCPMC7945372
OpenAlexW3135814252

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.