ArticleCancers2023
Validation of Claims Data for Absorbing Pads as a Measure for Urinary Incontinence after Radical Prostatectomy, a National Cross-Sectional Analysis.
Article in Cancers, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Continence Recovery After Radical Prostatectomy: Personalized Rehabilitation and Predictors of Treatment Outcome.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Patient and Physician Preferences for Maintenance Treatment in Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Insights into Treatment Selection.Advances in therapy · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
22 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The use of healthcare insurance claims data for urinary incontinence (UI) pads has the potential to serve as an objective measure for assessing post-radical prostatectomy UI rates, but its validity for this purpose has not been established. The aim of this study is to correlate claims data with Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) for UI pad use. Patients who underwent RP in the Netherlands between September 2019 and February 2020 were included. Incontinence was defined as the daily use of ≥1 pad(s). Claims data for UI pads at 12-15 months after RP were extracted from a nationwide healthcare insurance database in the Netherlands. Participating hospitals provided PROMS data. In total, 1624 patients underwent RP. Corresponding data of 845 patients was provided by nine participating hospitals, of which 416 patients were matched with complete PROMs data. Claims data and PROMs showed 31% and 45% post-RP UI (≥1 pads). UI according to claims data compared with PROMs had a sensitivity of 62%, specificity of 96%, PPV of 92%, NPV of 75% and accuracy of 81%. The agreement between both methods was moderate (κ = 0.60). Claims data for pads moderately align with PROMs in assessing post-prostatectomy urinary incontinence and could be considered as a conservative quality indicator.
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.