Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33980942›Full record

Observational studyScientific reports2021

Comparison of bipolar plasmakinetic resection of prostate versus photoselective vaporization of prostate by a three year retrospective observational study.

Xu Cheng, Chuying Qin, Peng Xu, Yijian Li, Mou Peng, Shuiqing Wu, Da Ren, Lizhi Zhou, Yinhuai Wang

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 33% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. 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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Xu Cheng *Department of Urology, The Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Renmin Middle Road 139, Changsha, 410011, China.
Chuying Qin *Department of Urology, The Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Renmin Middle Road 139, Changsha, 410011, China.
Peng XuDepartment of Urology, The Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Renmin Middle Road 139, Changsha, 410011, China.
Yijian LiDepartment of Urology, The Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Renmin Middle Road 139, Changsha, 410011, China.
Mou PengDepartment of Urology, The Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Renmin Middle Road 139, Changsha, 410011, China.
Shuiqing WuDepartment of Urology, The Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Renmin Middle Road 139, Changsha, 410011, China.
Da RenDepartment of Urology, The Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Renmin Middle Road 139, Changsha, 410011, China.
Lizhi ZhouDepartment of Urology, The Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Renmin Middle Road 139, Changsha, 410011, China.
Yinhuai WangDepartment of Urology, The Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Renmin Middle Road 139, Changsha, 410011, China. wangyinhuai@csu.edu.cn.
Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University · CNCentral South University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Comprehensive evaluation of photoselective vaporization of the prostate (PVP) versus plasmakinetic resection of the prostate (PKRP) in treating benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is inadequate. This single-centre, retrospective observational study was designed to compare their efficacy, complications and sexual function. A total of 215 patients under PVP or PKRP were included in the study, propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to match the baseline characteristics of the two groups, and perioperative and three-year follow-up data were compared between them. Finally, 120 patients (60 for PVP and 60 for PKRP) were matched after PSM. Compared with the PKRP group, the intraoperative haemoglobin loss was lower (9.08 vs 13.75 g/L, P < 0.001) and the duration of catheterization and postoperative hospital stay were shorter (2.97 vs 4.10 day, P < 0.001; 3.95 vs 5.13 day, P < 0.001, respectively), but the operation time was longer (56.72 vs 49, 90 min, P < 0.001) in the PVP group. Urination measurements were improved for both groups after surgery, although no significant differences were found between them during follow-up. Sexual function after surgery was partly increased; however, frequent retrograde and discomfortable ejaculation occurred in both groups. In addition, dysuria incidence and retreatment were higher in the PVP group at 12 months. In conclusion, PVP is safe and effective in relieving BPH-related lower urinary tract symptoms with less perioperative blood loss and earlier recovery without inferior sexual function effects. However, the study is potentially affected by residual unmeasured confounding.

Indexed as

AgedBiomarkersFollow-Up StudiesHumansMalePostoperative ComplicationsPrognosisPropensity ScoreProstatectomyProstatic HyperplasiaTreatment OutcomeBiomarkers

Identifiers

PMID33980942
PMCPMC8115102
OpenAlexW3160436962

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.