ReviewBJUI compass2024
A review of the current treatment methods for retroperitoneal fibrosis with obstructive uropathy.
Review in BJUI compass, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Erratum.BJUI compass · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issuedErratum.2024
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction and aims: Retroperitoneal fibrosis (RPF) is a fibroinflammatory disease in which patients may suffer obstructive uropathy (OU). The optimum treatment strategy for RPF with secondary OU is currently unclear, and the aim of this literature review is to assess the methods used to treat this patient cohort. Methods: Medline, Embase, Cinahl, the Cochrane Library and PubMed were systematically searched to find studies assessing treatment outcomes in this patient cohort. After reviewing the studies' titles, abstracts and full texts, 12 were found that matched our search aims. Data from these publications were analysed and reported. Results: The demographic and symptomatic features of patients across the 12 studies were representative of the general RPF population. No randomised control trials (RCTs) were found, and just one study formally compared outcomes between patients who underwent different treatment strategies. Many of the studies concluded that using medical and surgical methods in combination led to positive outcomes; whereas, others found positive outcomes following a variety of regimens. Many studies also highlighted, however, that significant minorities required further treatment after initial therapy. Conclusions regarding optimum treatment methods were limited as most publications did not formally compare outcomes following different strategies and had an observational study design. Conclusion: Although positive outcomes were commonly seen following medical, surgical and a combination of treatments, the literature currently lacks research formally comparing outcomes after assigning specific treatment protocols to groups of RPF patients. More research is therefore required to determine how to best manage RPF leading to secondary OU.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.