Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39345310›Full record

ArticleCentral European journal of urology2024

Transurethral resection and other minimally invasive treatment options for BPH: would we treat ourselves as we treat our patients? Results from EAU Section of Uro-Technology (ESUT) decision-making survey among urologists.

Holly Colvin, Max Johnston, Francesco Ripa, Mriganka Mani Sinha, Amelia Pietropaolo, James Brewin, Christian Fiori, Ali Gozen, Bhaskar K Somani

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Central European journal of urology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Holly ColvinUrology trainee, Salisbury NHS Foundation Trust, Salisbury, United Kingdom.
Max JohnstonConsultant Urological Surgeon, Salisbury NHS Foundation Trust, Salisbury, United Kingdom.
Francesco RipaUrology trainee, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, United Kingdom.
Mriganka Mani SinhaUrology trainee, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, United Kingdom.
Amelia PietropaoloConsultant Urological Surgeon, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, United Kingdom.
James BrewinConsultant Urological Surgeon, Salisbury NHS Foundation Trust, Salisbury, United Kingdom.
Christian FioriConsultant Urological Surgeon, Department of Oncology, Division of Urology, San Luigi Gonzaga Hospital, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
Ali GozenConsultant Urological Surgeon, Department of Urology, Medius Kliniken, Ruit, Baden-Württemberg, Germany.
Bhaskar K SomaniConsultant Urological Surgeon, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: With the introduction of novel treatment options for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), decision making regarding surgical management has become ever more complex. Factors such as clinical exposure, equipment availability, patient characteristics and hospital setting may affect what treatment is offered and an informed patient choice. The aim of this study was to investigate how urologists help patients make decisions regarding BPH management and whether their practice would differ if they were the patient themselves. Material and methods: A 52-question survey presenting hypothetical clinical scenarios was distributed to European urologists and trainees/residents online and in person. In each scenario, regarding treatment options for BPH, the participant considered themselves firstly as the treating clinician and secondly as the patient themselves. Details regarding the participants' clinical experience, awareness of treatment options and exposure to these options were obtained. Results: There were 139 participants; 69.8% of whom were consultants, with 82.1% of participants having practiced urology for more than 5 years. A total of 59.7% of urologists consider themselves BPH specialists. Furthermore, 93.5% of those surveyed had performed transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP), whilst procedures performed the least by participants were minimally invasive surgical therapy (MIST) options. Only 17.3% had seen and 1.4% had performed all of the treatment options. When considering themselves as a patient within standard practice, there was a preference for HoLEP amongst participants. Conclusions: The majority of urologists surveyed had minimal experience to newer BPH techniques and MIST, suggesting that more exposure is required. A higher rate of HoLEP was chosen as a treatment option for urologists themselves as a patient than what they would choose as an option for their patients.

Indexed as

benign prostatic hyperplasialaserlower urinary tract symptomsrezumTURPurolift

Identifiers

PMID39345310
PMCPMC11428359

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.