ArticleUrology annals
Awareness and compliance of urologists in the Middle East with minimally invasive surgical devices for the management of benign prostate hyperplasia.
Article in Urology annals. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: The objective is to assess urologists' awareness of and compliance with available minimally invasive devices (MIDs) for the management of benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH). Methods: An online Internet-based survey was sent to urologists through E-mail. Baseline characteristics included age, location and duration of practice, and number of prostatectomies performed in the previous 12 months. Awareness is based on the surgeons' opinions about their advantages and drawbacks. Results: A total of 308 participants responded to the survey; 87.0% were most aware of Rezūm, followed by Urolift (59.1%), Aquablation (33.1%), and combined temporary implantable nitinol device (iTIND), and Zenflow (17%). In the past 12 months, 84.1% used MIDs in their practice. A total of 47.1% of respondents believe that these devices have comparable outcomes with the traditional interventions, 52.9% are unsure of their long-term benefits, and 71% feel that it is too early to judge. Forty-three percent believe that these devices are reserved only for high-risk patients, and 52% recommend that they should be available in their centers. Most respondents (90.9%) prefer Rezūm, Urolift (28.2%), and Aquablation (12.6%) because they are less invasive, less time-consuming, and have few complications. Interestingly, 59% recommend MIDs to their family members. Conclusions: Most respondents are more aware of Rezūm, Urolift, and Aquablation than iTIND and Zenflow. In addition, most respondents agree that these MIDs and traditional prostate interventions have comparable outcomes despite the former lacking long-term outcome assessment. High cost and no long-term data may influence the widespread acceptance of these MIDs.
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.