MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391287922 · doi:10.1186/s12894-023-01397-1

Comparing prostatic artery embolization to surgical and minimally invasive procedures for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2024· review· en· W4391287922 on OpenAlexaff
Rachel MacKay Altman, Roseanne Ferreira, Camilo Barragán, Naeem Bhojani, Katherine Lajkosz, Kevin C. Zorn, Bilal Chughtai, Ganesan Annamalai, Dean Elterman

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Urology · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUrinary Bladder and Prostate Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversité de MontréalMount Sinai HospitalUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRandomized controlled trialObservational studyMeta-analysisProstatectomyProstateHyperplasiaEmbolizationBenign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH)UrologyOpen ProstatectomyTransurethral resection of the prostateAdverse effectSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: To summarize current evidence to report a comparative systematic review and meta-analysis of prostatic artery embolization (PAE) with transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) and open simple prostatectomy (OSP) for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed to identify studies published from inception until August 2021. The search terms used were (prostate embolization OR prostatic embolization) AND (prostatic hyperplasia OR prostatic obstruction) as well as the abbreviations of PAE and BPH. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and the Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies-of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool for observational studies. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed using Revman 5.4. RESULTS: Seven studies were included with 810 patients: five RCTs and one observational study compared PAE with TURP, and one observational study compared PAE with OSP. The included studies had considerable risk of bias concerns. TURP and OSP were associated with more statistically significant improvements in urodynamic measures and BPH symptoms compared to PAE. However, PAE seems to significantly improve erectile dysfunction compared to OSP and improve other outcome measures compared to TURP, although not significantly. PAE appeared to reduce adverse events and report more minor complications compared with TURP and OSP, but it is unclear whether PAE is more effective in the long-term. CONCLUSION: PAE is an emerging treatment option for patients with symptomatic BPH who cannot undergo surgery or have undergone failed medical therapy. Overall, PAE groups reported fewer adverse events. Future ongoing and longer-term studies are needed to provide better insight into the benefit of PAE compared to other treatment options.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.043
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.981
Threshold uncertainty score0.082

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.043
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0190.038
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.163
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.245 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC UrologySame topicUrinary Bladder and Prostate ResearchFrench-language works237,207