ArticleBMJ open2024
Comparative efficacy of non-pharmacological management for chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome: a systematic review and network meta-analysis protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 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.
- Aquablation for dual burden disease - BPH and chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome: a single-center prospective pilot study.BMC urology · 2026Article
- The "prostate-pelvic syndrome" theory used in patients with type-III prostatitis and its correlation with prostate volume.BMC urology · 2025Article
- The Impact of Psychological Nursing Combined with Respiratory Training on Mental Health, Pulmonary Function, and Quality of Life in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Retrospective Analysis.Patient preference and adherence · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS) has posed a significant burden on affected individuals and healthcare systems. While pharmacological treatments are commonly used, non-pharmacological management strategies have gained attention for their potential benefits in improving CP/CPPS symptoms. However, the comparative efficacy of these non-pharmacological interventions remains unclear. The aim of this study is to assess the comparative effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions for CP/CPPS regarding prostatic symptoms.
methodThis systematic review and network meta-analysis will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A comprehensive search will be conducted in electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science, to identify relevant studies. Eligible studies will include randomised controlled trials investigating non-pharmacological management strategies for CP/CPPS. Two independent reviewers will screen the retrieved citations, extract data and assess the risk of bias. Data synthesis will involve performing a network meta-analysis to compare the efficacy of different non-pharmacological interventions while considering both direct and indirect evidence. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The review does not require ethical approval. The findings of the review will be disseminated through publication in an academic journal, presentations at conferences and various media outlets. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42024506143.
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.