SynthesisBMJ open2022
Reliability and validity of assessment methods available in primary care for bladder outlet obstruction and benign prostatic obstruction in men with lower urinary tract symptoms: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prospective observational study of oxidative stress in the pathology of benign prostatic hyperplasia with bladder diverticulum.PloS one · 2025Observational
- Setting priorities for physical examination in pharmacy education: A Delphi study.Canadian pharmacists journal : CPJ = Revue des pharmaciens du Canada : RPCArticle
- Application of Urethral Contrast Computed Tomography Three-Dimensional Imaging in the Postoperative Assessment of Prostate Hyperplasia.American journal of men's healthArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
10 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo systematically review the literature regarding the reliability and validity of assessment methods available in primary care for bladder outlet obstruction or benign prostatic obstruction in men with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS).
designSystematic review with best evidence synthesis.
settingPrimary care.
participantsMen with LUTS due to bladder outlet obstruction or benign prostatic obstruction. REVIEW
methodsPubMed, Ebsco/CINAHL and Embase databases were searched for studies on the validity and reliability of assessment methods for bladder outlet obstruction and benign prostatic obstruction in primary care. Methodological quality was assessed with the COSMIN checklist. Studies with poor methodology were excluded from the best evidence synthesis.
resultsOf the 5644 studies identified, 61 were scored with the COSMIN checklist, 37 studies were included in the best evidence synthesis, 18 evaluated bladder outlet obstruction and 17 benign prostatic obstruction, 2 evaluated both. Overall, reliability was poorly evaluated. Transrectal and transabdominal ultrasound showed moderate to good validity to evaluate bladder outlet obstruction. Measured prostate volume with these ultrasound methods, to identify benign prostatic obstruction, showed moderate to good accuracy, supported by a moderate to high level of evidence. Uroflowmetry for bladder outlet obstruction showed poor to moderate diagnostic accuracy, depending on used cut-off values. Questionnaires were supported by high-quality evidence, although correlations and diagnostic accuracy were poor to moderate compared with criterion tests. Other methods were supported by low level evidence.
conclusionClinicians in primary care can incorporate transabdominal and transrectal ultrasound or uroflowmetry in the evaluation of men with LUTS but should not solely rely on these methods as the diagnostic accuracy is insufficient and reliability remains insufficiently researched. Low-to-moderate levels of evidence for most assessment methods were due to methodological shortcomings and inconsistency in the studies. This highlights the need for better study designs in this domain.
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.