Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38238789›Full record

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?

Sigrun Holze, Anna Sophie Kuntze, Meinhard Mende, Petra Neuhaus, Michael C Truss, Hoang Minh Do, Anja Dietel, Toni Franz, Jens-Uwe Stolzenburg

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled TrialMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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.

NCT03682146 nacompletednot on this map

A Multicenter Randomized Study to Investigate the Outcomes of Laparoscopic and Robotic-assisted Radical Prostatectomy

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of LeipzigRan2014 to 2021Enrolled782ConditionsProstate CancerArmsProstatectomy
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Sigrun Holze *Department of Urology, University of Leipzig, Liebigstraße 20, 04103, Leipzig, Germany. sigrun.holze@medizin.uni-leipzig.de.
Anna Sophie Kuntze *Department of Urology, University of Leipzig, Liebigstraße 20, 04103, Leipzig, Germany.
Meinhard MendeClinical Trial Centre Leipzig, University of Leipzig, Härtelstraße 16-18, 04107, Leipzig, Germany.
Petra NeuhausClinical Trial Centre Leipzig, University of Leipzig, Härtelstraße 16-18, 04107, Leipzig, Germany.
Michael C TrussDepartment of Urology, Klinikum Dortmund, Beurhausstr. 40, 44137, Dortmund, Germany.
Hoang Minh DoDepartment of Urology, University of Leipzig, Liebigstraße 20, 04103, Leipzig, Germany.
Anja DietelDepartment of Urology, University of Leipzig, Liebigstraße 20, 04103, Leipzig, Germany.
Toni FranzDepartment of Urology, University of Leipzig, Liebigstraße 20, 04103, Leipzig, Germany.
Jens-Uwe StolzenburgDepartment of Urology, University of Leipzig, Liebigstraße 20, 04103, Leipzig, Germany.
Leipzig University · DEKlinikum Dortmund · DEUniversity Hospital Leipzig · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Urinary IncontinenceHumansMaleProspective StudiesProstateProstatectomySurveys and QuestionnairesContinence definitionPad usageProstate cancerProstatectomyUrinary incontinence

Identifiers

PMID38238789
PMCPMC10795395
OpenAlexW4390977100

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.