ArticleWorld journal of urology2024
Quantifying treatment burden: the patient burden score a study of 758 patients across three clinical urologic scenarios.
Article in World journal of urology, 2024. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo develop a comprehensive scale that measures the three burden types of any treatment, including expected, unexpected (complications), and need for ancillary procedures.
methodsA panel of experts created a scale that assessed the burden of all aspects of treatment, including hospitalization, anesthesia, surgery, and follow-up. The total score is defined as the burden score (BS). BS was calculated retrospectively for patients in three clinical scenarios in urology, each with two acceptable treatment options: patients with a small renal mass (T1a) treated with either partial nephrectomy (PN, 139 patients) or percutaneous ablation (PA, 83 patients), patients with bladder cancer (stages T2-4a, N0, M0) treated with radical cystectomy (RC, 162 patients) or trimodal therapy (TMT, 88 patients), and patients with upper ureteral stones ≤ 10 mm treated with either ureteroscopy (137 patients) or extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy (SWL, 150 patients).
resultsBoth PN and PA provided excellent oncological results (5-year recurrence-free survival ≥ 97%) and low complication rates. However, the BS of PN was more than twice that of PA (27.3 ± 7.7 vs. 12.5 ± 6.4, p < 0.01). RC and TMT showed identical 3-year disease-specific survival rates (73%), but the BS of TMT was significantly lower (53.8 ± 11.1 vs. 42.0 ± 11.6, p < 0.01). Both ureteroscopy and SWL have achieved high stone-free rates (≥ 97%) and low complication rates. However, the BS of ureteroscopy was significantly lower (7.8 ± 3 vs. 9.0 ± 3.5, p < 0.01).
conclusionPA treatment for small renal masses, TMT for muscle-invasive bladder cancer, and ureteroscopy for upper ureteral stones provided similar success rates to those of PN, RC, and SWL, but with significantly lower BS. This tool can assist in patient consultation when multiple treatment options are available. The concept of BS can be extended to other fields of medicine.
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.