ArticleBMC urology2024
Converting between the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) urinary subscales: modeling and external validation.
Article in BMC urology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05192876 (Analysis of Outcomes and Adverse Events of Patients Undergoing Radiation Therapy. Quality Control Using Data Base of Patient Records 2000-2025), which is not on this 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.
Analysis of Outcomes and Adverse Events of Patients Undergoing Radiation Therapy. Quality Control Using Data Base of Patient Records 2000-2025
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The learning curve of waterjet ablation of the prostate: a cumulative sum analysis of surgical and functional outcomes.World journal of urology · 2026Article
- Rezūm water vapor therapy vs. thulium laser enucleation for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia in patients with large prostates: a multicenter prospective comparative study.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundProstate-related quality of life can be assessed with a variety of different questionnaires. The 50-item Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) and the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) are two widely used options. The goal of this study was, therefore, to develop and validate a model that is able to convert between the EPIC and the IPSS to enable comparisons across different studies.
methodsThree hundred forty-seven consecutive patients who had previously received radiotherapy and surgery for prostate cancer at two institutions in Switzerland and Germany were contacted via mail and instructed to complete both questionnaires. The Swiss cohort was used to train and internally validate different machine learning models using fourfold cross-validation. The German cohort was used for external validation.
resultsConverting between the EPIC Urinary Irritative/Obstructive subscale and the IPSS using linear regressions resulted in mean absolute errors (MAEs) of 3.88 and 6.12, which is below the respective previously published minimal important differences (MIDs) of 5.2 and 10 points. Converting between the EPIC Urinary Summary and the IPSS was less accurate with MAEs of 5.13 and 10.45, similar to the MIDs. More complex model architectures did not result in improved performance in this study. The study was limited to the German versions of the respective questionnaires.
conclusionsLinear regressions can be used to convert between the IPSS and the EPIC Urinary subscales. While the equations obtained in this study can be used to compare results across clinical trials, they should not be used to inform clinical decision-making in individual patients.
trial registrationThis study was retrospectively registered on clinicaltrials.gov on January 14th, 2022, under the registration number NCT05192876.
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.