Evaluation of benefits and harms of surgical treatments for post-radical prostatectomy urinary incontinence: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background : Post-radical prostatectomy urinary incontinence (PPI) is a frequent and feared complication that can affect approximately 25% of patients. Between 1 and 10% of patients suffering from PPI will require surgery. The effectiveness of the available surgical interventions has only been compared in a few randomized controlled trials and the available reviews have important limitations regarding both benefits and harms that make them insufficient to inform decision-making. The aim of the study is to provide systematic summaries of benefits and harms of contemporary surgical treatment options for PPI through systematic review and meta-analysis using GRADE methodology and reporting in accord with the PRISMA-P statement. Methods : Studies pertaining to bulking agents, male synthetic slings, compressive balloon systems (ProACT) or artificial urinary sphincters (AUS) used for the treatment of patients suffering from PPI will be included. A systematic search will be conducted using the OVID and PubMED platforms in MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane databases, and reference lists of relevant reviews and guidelines. Trained independent reviewers will conduct study selection and data extraction. Outcomes will include the number of pads used per day, the 24-h pad weight test, the Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) and the Incontinence Quality of Life (IQOL) as possible benefits and the reoperations, the Clavien-Dindo complications and the other reported adverse events as the harms. When possible, pooled analyses will be completed. Risk of bias will be assessed using the CLARITY tools and a new tool for the before-and-after studies without a control group. Finally, study heterogeneity will be assessed, publication bias will be evaluated with funnel plots and quality of evidence rated for each outcome. Discussion : Our study will address patient-important outcomes and will be useful in clinical decision-making as well as identifying key elements for future research. Study registration : PROSPERO: CRD42018073923 05/12/2018
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.051 | 0.075 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.029 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.062 | 0.006 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".