Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37305619›Full record

ArticleTranslational andrology and urology2023

The relationship between frailty, incontinence severity, and treatment decisions for men with post-prostatectomy stress urinary incontinence: a mixed methods analysis.

Charles P Jones, Nathan M Shaw, Jorge Mena, Benjamin N Breyer, Louise C Walter, Caitlin Baussan, Kathryn Quanstrom, I Elaine Allen, Daniel Dohan, Lindsay A Hampson

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Translational andrology and urology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. 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

10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Charles P JonesDepartment of Urology, School of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Nathan M ShawDepartment of Urology, School of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Jorge MenaDepartment of Urology, School of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Benjamin N BreyerDepartment of Urology, School of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Louise C WalterDepartment of Medicine, School of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Caitlin BaussanDepartment of Urology, School of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Kathryn QuanstromDepartment of Urology, School of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
I Elaine AllenDepartment of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, School of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Daniel DohanDepartment of Medicine, School of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Lindsay A HampsonDepartment of Urology, School of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
University of California, San Francisco · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Frailty is common among urology patients in general as well as among men seeking evaluation for stress urinary incontinence (SUI), with 6.1% of men undergoing artificial urinary sphincter placement considered frail. It is unclear if and how patient views on frailty and incontinence severity impact decision-making with regards to SUI treatment. Methods: We undertook a mixed methods analysis to evaluate the intersection of frailty, incontinence severity, and treatment decision-making is presented. To do so, we utilized a previously published cohort of men undergoing evaluation for SUI at the University of California, San Francisco between 2015 and 2020, selecting those who had evaluation with timed up and go test (TUGT), objective measures of incontinence, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). A subset of these participants had additionally undergone semi-structured interviews, and these interviews were re-examined to thematically code them with a focus on the impact of frailty and incontinence severity on SUI treatment decision-making. Results: Among the original cohort of 130 patients, 72 had an objective measure of frailty and were included in our analysis; 18 of these individuals had corresponding qualitative interviews. Common themes identified included (I) impact of incontinence severity on decision-making; (II) the interaction between frailty and incontinence; (III) the impact of comorbidity on treatment decision-making; and (IV) age as a construct of frailty and impact on surgical choice and/or recovery. Direct quotations regarding each theme provides insight into patients' views and drivers of SUI treatment decision-making. Conclusions: The impact of frailty on treatment decision-making for patients with SUI is complex. This mixed methods study highlights the variety of patient views on frailty with regards to surgical intervention for male SUI. Urologists should make a concerted effort to personalize patient counseling for SUI management and take time to understand each patient's perspective in order to individualize SUI treatment decision-making. More research is needed to help identify factors that influence decision-making for frail male patients with SUI.

Indexed as

Frailtyincontinenceprostatectomytreatment decisions

Identifiers

PMID37305619
PMCPMC10251103
OpenAlexW4362569355

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.