MP45-16 PHOTOSELECTIVE VAPORIZATION OF THE PROSTATE: FAVOURABILITY OF STUDY RESULTS AS A FUNCTION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST AND INDUSTRIAL SPONSORSHIP
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
You have accessJournal of UrologyBenign Prostatic Hyperplasia: Surgical Therapy & New Technology III (MP45)1 Apr 2019MP45-16 PHOTOSELECTIVE VAPORIZATION OF THE PROSTATE: FAVOURABILITY OF STUDY RESULTS AS A FUNCTION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST AND INDUSTRIAL SPONSORSHIP Marian S. Wettstein*, Clinsy Pazhepurackel, Aline S. Neumann, Dixon T.S. Woon, Jaime O. Herrera-Caceres, Cédric Poyet, Tullio Sulser, Girish S. Kulkarni, and Thomas Hermanns Marian S. Wettstein*Marian S. Wettstein* More articles by this author , Clinsy PazhepurackelClinsy Pazhepurackel More articles by this author , Aline S. NeumannAline S. Neumann More articles by this author , Dixon T.S. WoonDixon T.S. Woon More articles by this author , Jaime O. Herrera-CaceresJaime O. Herrera-Caceres More articles by this author , Cédric PoyetCédric Poyet More articles by this author , Tullio SulserTullio Sulser More articles by this author , Girish S. KulkarniGirish S. Kulkarni More articles by this author , and Thomas HermannsThomas Hermanns More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/01.JU.0000556279.11152.58AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Photoselective vaporization of the prostate (PVP) with the so-called 532nm greenlight laser is an accepted treatment modality for non-neurogenic lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to prostate enlargement. Conflicts of interest (COIs) and industrial sponsorship (IS) have been shown to have a significant impact on the favourability of study results. The aim of the current study was to evaluate outcomes of comparative studies on PVP as a function of COIs and IS. METHODS: MEDLINE and EMBASE were systematically searched for records in English language. Comparative studies (randomized controlled trials [RCTs] and non-randomized comparative studies [NRCSs]), in which PVP was one treatment modality, were considered eligible. Sponsorship assessment distinguished between IS and non-industrial sponsoring. Two reviewers screened all abstracts and full-text articles independently. Disagreement was resolved either by discussion or by reference to a third independent reviewer. Favorability of outcome was evaluated on a binary scale (PVP-favourable versus PVP-unfavourable) by two independent board-certified urologists external to the remaining study team. Descriptive statistics were used for data analysis. RESULTS: In total, 749 records were screened after manual deduplication. Of these, 286 articles were eligible for full-text screening. Full-text analysis identified 65 studies (25 RCTs [38%], 40 NRCSs [62%]). The majority of the studies mentioned the absence/presence of potential COIs (78%). In contrast, a sponsorship statement was only found in 29% of the investigations. Our analysis identified 56 conflicted authors. In 24 (37%) studies at least one COI was declared (range 1 to 18). Interestingly, searching the author lists of all included studies a second time for more occurrences of the 56 conflicted authors led to the identification 36 initially undeclared COIs in a total of 6 studies. Fifty-six (86%) and 9 (14%) of all included studies were rated as PVP-favourable and PVP-unfavourable, respectively. Among PVP-favourable studies, we could identify both a higher proportion of COI (39% vs. 32%) and IS (7% vs. 0%). CONCLUSIONS: Within the field of comparative PVP literature, COIs are not only highly prevalent but also more frequent in studies reporting PVP-favourable outcomes. IS was exclusively found in PVP-favourable studies. A majority of all RCTs and NRCSs on PVP mention the absence/presence of potential COIs. However, a sponsorship statement was identifiable in only about one third of all studies. Source of Funding: none Zurich, Switzerland; Toronto, Canada; Zurich, Switzerland; Toronto, Canada; Zurich, Switzerland© 2019 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 201Issue Supplement 4April 2019Page: e643-e643 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2019 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Marian S. Wettstein* More articles by this author Clinsy Pazhepurackel More articles by this author Aline S. Neumann More articles by this author Dixon T.S. Woon More articles by this author Jaime O. Herrera-Caceres More articles by this author Cédric Poyet More articles by this author Tullio Sulser More articles by this author Girish S. Kulkarni More articles by this author Thomas Hermanns More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».