569 research outputs found
Author Correction: Diagnostic and therapeutic workup of male infertility: results from a Delphi consensus panel (International Journal of Impotence Research, (2021), 10.1038/s41443-021-00511-x)
No full textThe following acknowledgments have been added: Authors want to acknowledge all collaborators who completed the questionnaire during the first and second round of voting: Paolo Turchi, Gianmartin Cito, Ilaria Natali, Alessandro Natali, Antonio Corvasce, Lucilla Divenuto, Stefano Impedovo, Michele Tedeschi, Francesco Paolo Turri, Antonio Vavallo, Antonio Vitarelli, Francesco Sebastiani, Davide Arcaniolo, Francesco Bottone, Francesco Chiancone, Lorenzo Cirigliano, Michelangelo Sorrentino, Giuseppina Peluso, Ottavio Sicuro, Pietro Paolo Cozza, Manuela Andreozzi, Marco Bitelli, Giorgio Franco, Vincenzo Gentile, Giuseppe La Pera, Andrea Ortensi, Pietro Salacone, Federica Sanna, Giovanni Tuffo, Paola Asero, Danilo Di Trapani, Vincenzo Favilla, Ignazio Gattuccio, Emilio Italiano, Bruno Giammusso, Filippo Montalto, Paolo Panella, Salvatore Privitera, Pietro Russo, Giuseppe Sidoti, Andrea Fabiani, Giorgio Gentile, Alessandro Franceschelli, Carlo Maretti, Edoardo Pescatori, Pasquale Scarano, Massimo Polito, Luigi Quaresima, Andrea Salonia, Gaetano Donatelli, Antonio Avolio, Daniele Tiscione, Andrea Galantini, Matteo Titta, Giorgio Piubello, Luca Boeri, Massimo Iafrate, Filippo Migliorni, Giovanni Liguori, Gioacchino De Giorgi, Emanuele Baldassarre, Giorgio Del Noce, Michele Manica, Carla Pasquale, Maurizio Ruggieri, Paolo Capogrosso, Fabrizio Ildefonso Scroppo, Elisabetta Micelli, Michele Rizzo
Erectile Recovery After Radical Pelvic Surgery: Methodological Challenges and Recommendations for Data Reporting
No full textINTRODUCTION: Erectile function (EF) outcomes after radical pelvic surgery vary widely among different studies, partly as a consequence of heterogeneity with regard to the data assessment and reporting methodology. AIM: Review the methodology of data assessment and reporting of studies evaluating EF outcomes after radical prostatectomy (RP), radical cystectomy (RC), and rectal surgery (RS) and provide detailed recommendations to conduct future high-quality research. METHODS: The MEDLINE database was searched for randomized clinical trials and open-label prospective or retrospective studies. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The panel reviewed the modality of data assessment and reporting concerning 3 specific areas: preoperative patients assessment, surgical technique description, and postoperative patients management and follow-up. RESULTS: Overall, 280, 36, and 73 studies investigating EF after RP, RC, and RS, respectively, were included. Baseline EF was largely reported (88%) in studies on RP, but only 67% of the studies on either RC or RS assessed EF before surgery. Baseline comorbidities that could impact postoperative EF were reported in 62%, 64%, and 85% of studies on RP, RC, and RS, respectively. The type of surgical approach was provided in all studies, and surgical details relevant to EF (eg, nerve- or organ-sparing surgery) were reported by 86%, 81%, and 62% of studies on RP, RC, and RS, respectively. Conversely, surgeon experience was rarely reported across all studies. Validated tools were commonly used to assess postoperative EF (64% of studies for RP, 78% for RC, and 71% for RS). Only 41%, 17%, and 29% of studies on RP, RC, and RS, respectively, reported a follow-up of at least 2 years. Use of erectile dysfunction treatment after surgery was assessed by only 39%, 17%, and 4.1% of studies on RP, RC, and RS, respectively. Factors potentially influencing EF recovery (eg, urinary or fecal continence, urinary diversion) were commonly reported, but sexual desire after surgery was reported by only 18%, 42%, and 37% of studies on RP, RC, and RS, respectively. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The use of a shared methodology for the assessment and reporting of data on EF outcomes after pelvic surgery would allow better estimation of EF outcomes after pelvic surgery. STRENGTHS & LIMITATIONS: The modality of data assessment and reporting among studies investigating EF outcome after pelvic surgery was systematically investigated to provide recommendations allowing a proper interpretation of data. CONCLUSION: Studies on EF outcomes after radical pelvic surgery should fulfill specific criteria concerning preoperative patient assessment, reporting of surgical details, and postoperative functional outcome evaluation and management. Capogrosso P, Pozzi EP, Celentano V, et al. Erectile Recovery After Radical Pelvic Surgery: Methodological Challenges and Recommendations for Data Reporting. J Sex Med 2020;17:7-16
Has Robotic Surgery Improved Erectile Function Recovery Rates in Radical Prostatectomy Patients?
No full textErectile Function Recovery After Surgery in Young Men with Low-risk Prostate Cancer: Probably Not Just a Matter of Age, Certainly Not the Main Point of Discussion
No full text
Correction to: Efficacy of Collagenase Clostridium histolyticum (Xiapex®) in Patients with the Acute Phase of Peyronie’s Disease (Clinical Drug Investigation, (2020), 40, 6, (583-588), 10.1007/s40261-020-00916-4)
No full textThe original version of this article unfortunately contained a mistake. The fifth author’s given name is Francesco and the family name is Lotti. Title page: Authors’ names, which previously read: Andrea Cocci, Fabrizio Di Maida, Giorgio Ivan Russo, Paolo Capogrosso, Lotti Francesco, Michele Rizzo, Marina Di Mauro, Andrea Salonia, Gianmartin Cito, Marco Falcone, Andrea Romano, Gaia Polloni, Juan Ignacio Martinez-Salamanca, Esaù Fernández-Pascual, Andrea Minervini & Nicola Mondaini Should read: Andrea Cocci, Fabrizio Di Maida, Giorgio Ivan Russo, Paolo Capogrosso, Francesco Lotti, Michele Rizzo, Marina Di Mauro, Andrea Salonia, Gianmartin Cito, Marco Falcone, Andrea Romano, Gaia Polloni, Juan Ignacio Martinez- Salamanca, Esaù Fernández-Pascual, Andrea Minervini & Nicola Mondain
A Systematic Review of the Literature Demonstrates Some Errors in the Use of Decision Curve Analysis but Generally Correct Interpretation of Findings
No full textBackground. Decision curve analysis (DCA) is a widely used methodology in clinical research studies. Purpose. We performed a literature review to identify common errors in the application of DCA and provide practical suggestions for appropriate use of DCA. Data Sources. We first conducted an informal literature review and identified 6 errors found in some DCAs. We then used Google Scholar to conduct a systematic review of studies applying DCA to evaluate a predictive model, marker, or test. Data Extraction. We used a standard data collection form to collect data for each reviewed article. Data Synthesis. Each article was assessed according to the 6 predefined criteria for a proper analysis, reporting, and interpretation of DCA. Overall, 50 articles were included in the review: 54% did not select an appropriate range of probability thresholds for the x-axis of the DCA, with a similar proportion (50%) failing to present smoothed curves. Among studies with internal validation of a predictive model and correction for overfit, 61% did not clearly report whether the DCA had also been corrected. However, almost all studies correctly interpreted the DCA, used a correct outcome (92% for both), and clearly reported the clinical decision at issue (81%). Limitations. A comprehensive assessment of all DCAs was not performed. However, such a strategy would not influence the main findings. Conclusions. Despite some common errors in the application of DCA, our finding that almost all studies correctly interpreted the DCA results demonstrates that it is a clear and intuitive method to assess clinical utility
- …
