ArticleUrology2025
Determining the Severity of Benign Urologic Health States in Men Using Utilities Measures.
Article in Urology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo assess a population-level perceived health status of common reconstructive urologic conditions using health utilities.
methodsHealth utilities are generic quality-of-life measures that can help describe overall health status and can quantitatively compare different disease states and the perceived benefits of various interventions. An a priori determined, representative sample of adult men were recruited by Qualtrics to review standardized scenarios describing typical patients with reconstructive urologic conditions, surgeries to treat conditions, and control conditions (eg, blindness, osteoarthritis). Condition-specific health status was measured using four tools: visual analog scale, standard gamble, time-trade off and willingness-to-pay and reported in Quality-adjusted Life Years (QALY; range 0.0 (death) to 1.0 (perfect health)).
resultsWe analyzed 562 completed surveys from condition-naive participants. Condition-specific health status ranged from a mean of 0.52 QALY to 0.66 QALY, with all reconstructive conditions perceived to be worse than osteoarthritis and monocular blindness (QALY 0.68). Health status was lowest for adult-acquired buried penis (0.52 QALY) and pelvic radiation disease (0.53 QALY), comparable to binocular blindness (QALY 0.52). Treatment of erectile dysfunction with inflatable penile prosthesis (∆QALY +0.02; P <.001) and stress urinary incontinence with artificial urinary sphincter (∆QALY +0.04; P <.001) offered only nominal perceived gain in health status.
conclusionHealth utilities may improve the ability to discriminate between heterogeneous reconstructive urologic disease states. For nononcologic disease states in which mortality is not measured, health utilities could improve the ability to measure societal impact and justification for clinical and research investment.
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.