SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2024
Prediction models for urinary incontinence after robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Journal of robotic surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and validation of an interpretable machine learning model for predicting urinary incontinence at 6 months after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Association of the G8 score with urinary continence recovery after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.World journal of urology · 2026Article
- Early catheter removal after Retzius-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.Journal of robotic surgery · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Even though robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RARP) is superior to open surgery in reducing postoperative complications, 6-20% of patients still experience urinary incontinence (UI) after surgery. Therefore, many researchers have established predictive models for UI occurrence after RARP, but the predictive performance of these models is inconsistent. This study aims to systematically review and critically evaluate the published prediction models of UI risk for patients after RARP. We conducted a comprehensive literature search in the databases of PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Embase. Literature published from inception to March 20, 2024, which reported the development and/or validation of clinical prediction models for the occurrence of UI after RARP. We identified seven studies with eight models that met our inclusion criteria. Most of the studies used logistic regression models to predict the occurrence of UI after RARP. The most common predictors included age, body mass index, and nerve sparing procedure. The model performance ranged from poor to good, with the area under the receiver operating characteristic curves ranging from 0.64 to 0.98 in studies. All the studies have a high risk of bias. Despite their potential for predicting UI after RARP, clinical prediction models are restricted by their limited accuracy and high risk of bias. In the future, the study design should be improved, the potential predictors should be considered from larger and representative samples comprehensively, and high-quality risk prediction models should be established. And externally validating models performance to enhance their clinical accuracy and applicability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38869689What 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.