ArticleBJU international2025
What is lost in an average? Identifying distinct post-radical prostatectomy functional recovery profiles.
Article in BJU international, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comment on "patient-perceived recovery after posterior spinal fusion: evaluating minimum clinically important difference (MCID) in adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis".Spine deformity · 2026Article
- Sexual Health Needs and Physician-Patient Interaction Experiences Among Postoperative Radical Prostatectomy Patients in China: A Qualitative Study.Nursing open · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo describe, via latent variable mixture modelling, distinct post-radical prostatectomy (RP) patient-reported outcome (PRO) recovery profiles, which are positioned to complement currently disseminated statistical averages for shared decision-making. PATIENTS AND
methodsPatients undergoing RP and completing the 26-item Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite 12 months after surgery were identified from the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative data registry. Hierarchical cluster analysis and latent variable mixture modelling was applied to urinary incontinence (UI) and sexual function (SF) recovery scores, and final models chosen based on optimal performance.
resultsA total of 3956 patients comprised the study cohort. Three distinct UI profiles were identified with prevalence of 49%, 37% and 14% from best to worst recovery, respectively. Four distinct SF profiles were identified with prevalence of 14%, 24%, 42%, and 20%, from best to worst recovery, respectively. The last two SF profiles had similar function scores but differed based on perception of function being bothersome. Limitations include incomplete PRO capture, which may introduce bias.
conclusionsWe identify distinct UI and SF recovery profiles and their prevalence from a large, prospectively maintained registry, potentially improving interpretability of PRO data for decision making.
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.