Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38026481›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in surgery2023

Surgical techniques to preserve continence after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.

Stamatios Katsimperis, Patrick Juliebø-Jones, Anthony Ta, Zafer Tandogdu, Osama Al-Bermani, Themistoklis Bellos, Francesco Esperto, Senol Tonyali, Iraklis Mitsogiannis, Andreas Skolarikos and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

13 authors at 8 institutions in 5 countries.

Stamatios Katsimperis2nd Department of Urology, Sismanoglio Hospital, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece.
Patrick Juliebø-JonesDepartment of Urology, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway.
Anthony TaDepartment of Urology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Zafer TandogduDepartment of Urology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Osama Al-BermaniDepartment of Urology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Themistoklis Bellos2nd Department of Urology, Sismanoglio Hospital, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece.
Francesco EspertoDepartment of Urology, Campus Biomedico University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Senol TonyaliDepartment of Urology, Istanbul Faculty of Medicine, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Türkiye.
Iraklis Mitsogiannis2nd Department of Urology, Sismanoglio Hospital, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece.
Andreas Skolarikos2nd Department of Urology, Sismanoglio Hospital, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece.
Ioannis Varkarakis2nd Department of Urology, Sismanoglio Hospital, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece.
Bhaskar K SomaniDepartment of Urology, University of Hospital Southampton NHS Trust, Southampton, United Kingdom.
Lazaros TzelvesDepartment of Urology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
National and Kapodistrian University of Athens · GRUniversity College London · GBUniversity College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GBHaukeland University Hospital · NOIstanbul University · TRSismanoglio General Hospital · GRUniversità Campus Bio-Medico · ITUniversity Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Radical prostatectomy significantly impacts the inherent anatomy of the male pelvis and the functional mechanisms of urinary continence. Incontinence has a considerable negative influence on the quality of life of patients, as well as their social and psychological wellbeing. Numerous surgical techniques have been demonstrated to support the preservation of continence during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). In this in-depth analysis, we give a general summary of the surgical techniques used in RARP and their impact on incontinence rates.

Indexed as

continence recoveryfunctional outcomespreserving reconstruction techniquesprostate cancerrobot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP)

Identifiers

PMID38026481
PMCPMC10655003
OpenAlexW4388294324

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.