ReviewBJU international2026
Health-related quality of life and patient-reported outcome measures in economic evaluation of urological technologies: challenges and opportunities.
Review 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo examine the role of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) assessments and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in the economic evaluation of urological interventions, highlighting methodological challenges, and identifying areas for future development.
methodsThis narrative review synthesises key frameworks for economic evaluation in urology, describes methods for utility derivation, and critically appraises the application of both generic and disease-specific PROMs. Evidence is drawn from major urological trials and model-based evaluations, with attention to their impact on health technology assessment decisions.
resultsPatient-reported outcome measures underpin cost-utility analyses across the full spectrum of urological conditions, including benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), urinary incontinence, overactive bladder, bladder cancer, renal cancer, and prostate cancer. Generic instruments such as the EuroQoL five Dimensions (EQ-5D) and 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) facilitate cross-disease comparison but may lack sensitivity to urological symptoms. Disease-specific tools (e.g., International Prostate Symptom Score, Overactive Bladder Questionnaire, 26-item Expanded Prostate cancer Index Composite) provide granularity but often require mapping to utility values, introducing uncertainty. Trial-based evaluations (e.g., Trans European Research into the use of Management Policies for LUTS suggestive of BPH in Primary Healthcare [TRIUMPH], Single-Incision Mini-Slings [SIMS], Refractory Overactive Bladder: Sacral NEuromodulation vs BoTulinum Toxin Assessment [ROSETTA]) demonstrate that PROM-derived quality-adjusted life year differences can decisively influence cost-effectiveness. Surgery-related PROMs including the Consultation and Relational Empathy measure can capture important short-term recovery outcomes not measured by generic tools.
conclusionsHealth-related quality of life and PROMs are foundational to value-based urological care. Accurate and context-sensitive measurement ensures that cost-utility analyses reflect patient experience as well as clinical outcomes. Future priorities include development of preference-based urology-specific PROMs, improved digital/electronic PROM capture, validation of mapping algorithms, and integration of surgery-related PROMs into economic evaluations.
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.