Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42383188›Full record

ArticleEuropean urology open science2026

Knowledge Gaps and Barriers to Care in Men with Postprostatectomy Incontinence: Evidence from the German ProKontinenz Trial.

Viktoria Menzel, Christoph Kowalski, Sophie Klara Schellack, Rainer Koch, Sebastian Dieng, Axel Haferkamp, Alexander Winter, Andreas Blana, Carsten Schwarzer, Andreas Gonsior and 32 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European urology open science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

42 authors.

Viktoria MenzelDepartment of Urology, Medical Faculty Carl Gustav Carus TU Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
Christoph KowalskiDeutsche Krebsgesellschaft e.V., Berlin, Germany.
Sophie Klara SchellackDeutsche Krebsgesellschaft e.V., Berlin, Germany.
Rainer KochDepartment of Urology, Medical Faculty Carl Gustav Carus TU Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
Sebastian DiengOnkoZert GmbH, Neu-Ulm, Germany.
Axel HaferkampDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Johannes Gutenberg, Mainz, Germany.
Alexander WinterUniversity Hospital for Urology, Klinikum Oldenburg, Department of Human Medicine, School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Carl von Ossietzky University Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Germany.
Andreas BlanaDepartment of Urology, Klinikum Fürth, Fürth, Germany.
Carsten SchwarzerDepartment of Urology, Klinikum Dortmund, Dortmund, Germany.
Andreas GonsiorDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Leipzig AöR, Leipzig, Germany.
Karl H TullyDepartment of Urology and Neurourology, Marien Hospital Herne, Ruhr-University Bochum, Herne, Germany.
Stefan BaltesKRH Klinikum Region Hannover, Klinikum Siloah, Hannover, Germany.
Ingo KauschDepartment of Urology and Paediatric Urology, Ammerland Klinik GmbH, Westerstede, Germany.
Andreas ManseckDepartment of Urology, Klinikum Ingolstadt, Ingolstadt, Germany.
Serdar DegerDepartment of Urology, Medius-Klinik Ostfildern-Ruit, Ostfildern, Germany.
Firas JamourDepartment of Urology, Klinikum Westmünsterland, Ahaus, Germany.
Jörg ErdmannProstate Cancer Centre Tauber-Franken, Bad Mergentheim, Germany.
Ina H KunzDepartment of Urology, Zeisigwaldkliniken Bethanien, Chemnitz, Germany.
Holger KujauDepartment of Urology, SRH Wald-Klinikum Gera, Gera, Germany.
Martina SchlederDepartment of Urology, St. Elisabeth Hospital Straubing, Straubing, Germany.
Anna SchulzeDepartment of Urology, Dresden Friedrichstadt General Hospital, Dresden, Germany.
Jan RammDepartment of Urology, Sana Klinikum Leipziger Land, Borna, Germany.
Markus StraubDepartment of Urology, Klinikum Landshut, Region Landshut, Germany.
Jasper KoenigDepartment of Urology, KRH Klinikum Großburgwedel, Burgwedel, Germany.
Dennis WielanderDepartment of Urology, Vivantes Auguste-Viktoria Klinikum, Berlin, Germany.
Andreas NeisiusDepartment of Urology, Brüderkrankenhaus Trier, Trier, Germany.
Hans-Peter GerbershagenDepartment of Urology, Klinikum Ludwigsburg, Ludwigsburg, Germany.
Felix WezelDepartment of Urology, Ulm University Hospital, Ulm, Germany.
Stefan ConradDepartment of Urology, DIAKOVERE Friederikenstift, Hannover, Germany.
Reinhard HofmannDepartment of Urology, Klinikum Wolfsburg, Wolfsburg, Germany.
Simon MüllerDepartment of Urology, Klinikum Trauenstein/Kliniken Südostbayern AG, Trauenstein, Germany.
Karl-Dietrich SievertDepartment of Urology, Medical School and University Medical Center OWL, Campus Klinikum Lippe, Bielefeld University, Detmold, Germany.
Rishav PradhanDepartment of Urology, Katholische St. Lukas Gesellschaft mbH, St.-Josefs Hospital Dortmund, Dortmund, Germany.
Roger RiexingerDepartment of Urology, Klinikverbund Südwest, Kreisklinikum Nagold, Nagold, Germany.
Petra StammDepartment of Urology, Heilig Geist-Krankenhaus Köln, Köln, Germany.
Thomas KnollDepartment of Urology, Sindelfingen-Boeblingen Medical Center, University of Tübingen, Sindelfingen, Germany.
Oliver HahnDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany.
Johannes GraffDepartment of Urology, St. Elisabeth-Krankenhaus Köln-Hohenlind, Köln, Germany.
Ernst-Günther CarlBundesverband Prostatakrebs Selbsthilfe e.V., Bonn, Germany.
Johannes HuberDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Christian ThomasDepartment of Urology, Medical Faculty Carl Gustav Carus TU Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
Martin BaunackeDepartment of Urology, Medical Faculty Carl Gustav Carus TU Dresden, Dresden, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and objective: Postprostatectomy incontinence (PPI) reduces quality of life, yet remains undertreated despite effective surgical options. Persistently low intervention rates in Europe for PPI suggest a care gap. This study assessed patients' knowledge of surgical PPI treatments and barriers to treatment uptake. Methods: Cross-sectional baseline analysis of Key findings and limitations: A total of 526 of 692 men participated (90% response rate). Among the participants, common reasons for not considering incontinence surgery were satisfaction with incontinence products (79%), concerns about surgical risks (53%), and doubts about success of surgery (51%). Fifty-nine percent men reported no knowledge of surgical PPI treatment. Independent predictors of lacking knowledge were low urine loss (odds ratio [OR] 2.4, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.3-4.7), less severe King's Health Questionnaire (KHQ)-score "role limitation" (OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.1-4.3), concerns about treatment success (OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.2-4.1), and missing information from the urologist (OR 4.2, 95% CI 1.1-16.7) or partner (OR 2.0, 95% CI 1.2-3.8). Limitations of the study include self-reported data and a nonvalidated definition of "knowledge." Conclusions and clinical implications: Among patients with PPI for ≥12 mo after radical prostatectomy, more than half did not have any knowledge of potentially effective surgery. Information deficits and symptom severity influence knowledge. Strengthening guideline-based information and clinician-patient communication may help close this gap.

Indexed as

Continence careHealth informationHealth service researchPostprostatectomy incontinenceStress urinary incontinenceTreatment barriers

Identifiers

PMID42383188
PMCPMC13316280

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.