ArticleBJU international2026
Patient-reported outcome measures in prostate research: a scoping review.
Article in BJU international, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo summarise how patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are used in prostate research, specifically in the 10 years after the 2010 CONsolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines were introduced.
methodsThe search was focussed on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) reporting in the top 15 journals in oncology, urology, and medicine, during 2011-2020 and identified through PubMed®. For each article the following items were identified: the condition being treated, the intervention(s) of interest, the study design, the specific PROM(s) used, when they were included in the treatment pathway, how they were analysed, and whether methods to deal with multiplicity or missing data were considered.
resultsThere were 361 potentially eligible articles identified from the PubMed search, of which 121 were eligible for the full-text review. The articles were RCTs assessing interventions for lower urinary tract symptoms (n = 54) or prostate cancer (n = 67), for which the most commonly reported PROMs were the International Prostate Symptom Score (50/54) and Functional Assessment of Cancer/Chronic Illness Therapy questionnaires (28/67), respectively. Details on the analysis and handling of PROMs were difficult to obtain; notably, 60% of articles failed to mention whether any methods had been used for dealing with multiplicity or missing data. An incidental finding was that sexually inactive men were excluded from analyses in some of the articles.
conclusionsOur scoping review highlights the need to refine the way PROMs are incorporated and analysed in prostate randomised trials, so their findings can be efficiently applied in further research and clinical practice. Adherence to the CONSORT guidelines, specifically clear reporting of the timing of PROMs, the handling of missing data, and multiplicity, should be encouraged. RCTs in prostate cancer would benefit from core outcome and measurement sets, to avoid unnecessary overlap and facilitate evidence synthesis.
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.