Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34115242›Full record

ReviewCurrent urology reports2021

How I Handle Retreatment of LUTS Following a Failed MIST.

Alexis E Te, Ahra Cho, Bilal I Chughtai

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current urology 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 32% 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Alexis E TeDepartment of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College of Cornell University, 425 East 61st street, 12th floor, New York, NY, 10065, USA. aet2005@med.cornell.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5815-7196
Ahra ChoDepartment of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College of Cornell University, 425 East 61st street, 12th floor, New York, NY, 10065, USA.
Bilal I ChughtaiDepartment of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College of Cornell University, 425 East 61st street, 12th floor, New York, NY, 10065, USA.
Cornell University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewThe goal of this paper is to review retreatment management after failed minimally invasive treatment (MIST) of various technologies. RECENT

findingsA failed MIST can be defined by the return, persistence, or worsening of LUTS, as documented by symptom scores. Persistence, development, or recurrence of comorbidities such as recurrent urinary tract infection (UTI), retention, stones, hematuria, and incontinence can also signal a failed MIST. The common etiology for MIST failure is the preoperative consequence of long-term bladder outlet obstruction (BOO) on the bladder function. Close monitoring of therapies with antimuscarinics or beta-agonists can be empirically utilized if post-void bladder residual (PVR) is low. If there is a high PVR, urodynamic studies and cystoscopy can be used to determine overactive bladder (OAB), BOO, or necrosis. Depending on the timing of the observed BOO/OAB, subsequent retreatments involving transurethral debridement, medical and behavioral therapies, or repeat surgical debulking can be employed.

Indexed as

Minimally Invasive Surgical ProceduresRetreatmentCytoreduction Surgical ProceduresHumansRecurrenceTreatment FailureUrinary Tract InfectionsComplicationsFailed minimally invasive surgical treatmentLimitationsRe-treatments

Identifiers

PMID34115242
OpenAlexW3172113823

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.