MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393095811 · doi:10.1186/s13643-024-02514-3

Transurethral surgical treatment for benign prostatic hyperplasia with detrusor underactivity: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2024· review· en· W4393095811 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Peilin Zou, Chang Liu, Yucong Zhang, Chao Wei, Xiaming Liu, Shengfei Xu, Qing Ling, Zhong Chen, Guanghui Du, Xiaoyi Yuan

Bibliographic record

VenueSystematic Reviews · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUrinary Bladder and Prostate Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineUrologyInternational Prostate Symptom ScoreProstateProstatectomyHyperplasiaTransurethral resection of the prostateLower urinary tract symptomsOpen ProstatectomyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background The efficacy of surgical treatment for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) patients with detrusor underactivity (DU) remains controversial. Methods To summarize relevant evidence, three databases (PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science) were searched from database inception to May 1, 2023. Transurethral surgical treatment modalities include transurethral prostatectomy (TURP), photoselective vaporization of the prostate (PVP), and transurethral incision of the prostate (TUIP). The efficacy of the transurethral surgical treatment was assessed according to maximal flow rate on uroflowmetry ( Q max ), International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), postvoid residual (PVR), quality of life (QoL), voided volume, bladder contractility index (BCI) and maximal detrusor pressure at maximal flow rate (PdetQ max ). Pooled mean differences (MDs) were used as summary statistics for comparison. The quality of enrolled studies was evaluated by using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. Sensitivity analysis and funnel plots were applied to assess possible biases. Results In this study, 10 studies with a total of 1142 patients enrolled. In BPH patients with DU, within half a year, significant improvements in Q max (pooled MD, 4.79; 95% CI, 2.43–7.16; P < 0.05), IPSS(pooled MD, − 14.29; 95%CI, − 16.67–11.90; P < 0.05), QoL (pooled MD, − 1.57; 95% CI, − 2.37–0.78; P < 0.05), voided volume (pooled MD, 62.19; 95% CI, 17.91–106.48; P < 0.05), BCI (pooled MD, 23.59; 95% CI, 8.15–39.04; P < 0.05), and PdetQ max (pooled MD, 28.62; 95% CI, 6.72–50.52; P < 0.05) were observed after surgery. In addition, after more than 1 year, significant improvements were observed in Q max (pooled MD, 6.75; 95%CI, 4.35–9.15; P < 0.05), IPSS(pooled MD, − 13.76; 95%CI, − 15.17–12.35; P < 0.05), PVR (pooled MD, − 179.78; 95%CI, − 185.12–174.44; P < 0.05), QoL (pooled MD, − 2.61; 95%CI, − 3.12–2.09; P < 0.05), and PdetQ max (pooled MD, 27.94; 95%CI, 11.70–44.19; P < 0.05). Compared with DU patients who did not receive surgery, DU patients who received surgery showed better improvement in PVR (pooled MD, 137.00; 95%CI, 6.90–267.10; P < 0.05) and PdetQ max (pooled MD, − 8.00; 95%CI, − 14.68–1.32; P < 0.05). Conclusions Our meta-analysis results showed that transurethral surgery can improve the symptoms of BPH patients with DU. Surgery also showed advantages over pharmacological treatment for BPH patients with DU. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42023415188.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.367
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0500.010
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.289
GPT teacher head0.473
Teacher spread0.184 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designSystematic review
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

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSystematic ReviewsSame topicUrinary Bladder and Prostate ResearchFrench-language works237,207