Trial reportEuropean journal of medical research2024
Assessment of different continence definitions in the context of the randomized multicenter prospective LAP-01 trial-Does the best definition change over time?
Trial report in European journal of medical research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03682146 (A Multicenter Randomized Study to Investigate the Outcomes of Laparoscopic and Robotic-assisted Radical Prostatectomy), which is not on this 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.
A Multicenter Randomized Study to Investigate the Outcomes of Laparoscopic and Robotic-assisted Radical Prostatectomy
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Urinary continence after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy with complete urethral preservation.BJUI compass · 2026Article
- Improved Early Urinary Continence After Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy Using a Modified Vesicourethral Anastomosis with Posterior Musculofascial Reconstruction: A Prospective Comparative Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Recent Advances in Diagnosing and Treating Post-Prostatectomy Urinary Incontinence.Annals of surgical oncology · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA uniform definition of continence is urgently needed to allow the comparison of study results and to estimate patient outcomes after radical prostatectomy (RP). To identify a practical definition that includes both objective and subjective aspects in a tangible way, we assessed different continence definitions and evaluated which best reflects the patients' subjective perception of continence.
methodsOur analyses included 718 patients that underwent either robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) or laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) in a multicenter randomized patient-blinded trial. Continence was assessed through patient questionnaires prior to and at 3, 6 and 12 months after surgery which included the number of pads used per day, the ICIQ-SF and the question "Do you suffer from incontinence? (yes/no)" to assess subjective continence. We used Krippendorff's Alpha to calculate the agreement of different continence definitions with the subjective perception.
resultsAt 3 months, the "0/safety pad" definition shows the highest agreement by alpha = 0.70 (vs. 0.63 for "0 pads" and 0.37 for "0-1 pad"). At 6 and 12 months "0 pads" is the better match, with alpha values of 0.69 (vs. 0.62 and 0.31) after 6 months and 0.70 (vs. 0.65 and 0.32) after 12 months. The ICIQ-SF score shows good correlation with the subjective continence at 3 months (alpha = - 0.79), the coefficient then decreasing to - 0.69 and - 0.59 at 6 and 12 months.
conclusionThe best continence definition according to the patients' perspective changes over time, "0 pads" being the superior criterion in the long-term. We recommend using the 0-pad definition for standardized continence reporting, as it is simple yet as accurate as possible given the inevitably high subjectivity of continence perception. Trial registration The LAP-01 trial was registered with the U.S. National Library of Medicine clinical trial registry (clinicaltrials.gov), NCT number: NCT03682146, and with the German Clinical Trial registry (Deutsches Register Klinischer Studien), DRKS ID number: DRKS00007138.
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.