PURPOSE: To investigate the outcomes of comparative studies on photoselective vaporization of the prostate (PVP) as a function of risk of bias (RoB), conflicts of interest (COI), and industrial sponsorship (IS). METHODS: We performed a systematic literature search for comparative studies on PVP [randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized comparative studies (NRCSs)]. Study selection as well as comprehensive assessment of RoB, COIs, and IS were performed in duplicate. The identified studies were further rated by two independent board-certified urologists as either PVP-favourable or PVP-unfavourable. Descriptive statistics were performed among all identified studies and among the subgroups of studies rated as favourable and unfavourable, respectively. RESULTS: Sixty-five studies qualified for inclusion (25 RTCs and 40 NRCSs) of which 56 (86%) were rated favourable and 9 (14%) unfavourable. A majority of all studies mentioned the absence/presence of potential COIs (78%). In contrast, a sponsorship statement was only found in 29% of the investigations. Studies rated favourable demonstrated a higher percentage of COIs (39% versus 22%). IS was exclusively found among favourable studies. Furthermore, a serious or critical RoB was more often found in favourably rated NRCSs. CONCLUSIONS: COIs and IS seem to be associated with favourable study outcomes in comparative studies on PVP. The transparency of the whole research process from study conception to the dissemination of the results has to be further improved to prevent a harmful effect of COIs and IS on the internal validity of studies.
PURPOSE: To investigate the outcomes of comparative studies on photoselective vaporization of the prostate (PVP) as a function of risk of bias (RoB), conflicts of interest (COI), and industrial sponsorship (IS). METHODS: We performed a systematic literature search for comparative studies on PVP [randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized comparative studies (NRCSs)]. Study selection as well as comprehensive assessment of RoB, COIs, and IS were performed in duplicate. The identified studies were further rated by two independent board-certified urologists as either PVP-favourable or PVP-unfavourable. Descriptive statistics were performed among all identified studies and among the subgroups of studies rated as favourable and unfavourable, respectively. RESULTS: Sixty-five studies qualified for inclusion (25 RTCs and 40 NRCSs) of which 56 (86%) were rated favourable and 9 (14%) unfavourable. A majority of all studies mentioned the absence/presence of potential COIs (78%). In contrast, a sponsorship statement was only found in 29% of the investigations. Studies rated favourable demonstrated a higher percentage of COIs (39% versus 22%). IS was exclusively found among favourable studies. Furthermore, a serious or critical RoB was more often found in favourably rated NRCSs. CONCLUSIONS: COIs and IS seem to be associated with favourable study outcomes in comparative studies on PVP. The transparency of the whole research process from study conception to the dissemination of the results has to be further improved to prevent a harmful effect of COIs and IS on the internal validity of studies.
Authors: Martin Schoenthaler; Arkadiusz Miernik; Konrad Wilhelm; Daniel Schlager; Dominik Stefan Schoeb; Fabian Adams; Philipp Dahm; Simon Hein Journal: BJU Int Date: 2015-12-29 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Rahul V Shah; Todd J Albert; Victoria Bruegel-Sanchez; Alexander R Vaccaro; Alan S Hilibrand; Jonathan N Grauer Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2005-05-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Erik von Elm; Douglas G Altman; Matthias Egger; Stuart J Pocock; Peter C Gøtzsche; Jan P Vandenbroucke Journal: Lancet Date: 2007-10-20 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Alexander Bachmann; Andrea Tubaro; Neil Barber; Frank d'Ancona; Gordon Muir; Ulrich Witzsch; Marc-Oliver Grimm; Joan Benejam; Jens-Uwe Stolzenburg; Antony Riddick; Sascha Pahernik; Herman Roelink; Filip Ameye; Christian Saussine; Franck Bruyère; Wolfgang Loidl; Tim Larner; Nirjan-Kumar Gogoi; Richard Hindley; Rolf Muschter; Andrew Thorpe; Nitin Shrotri; Stuart Graham; Moritz Hamann; Kurt Miller; Martin Schostak; Carlos Capitán; Helmut Knispel; J Andrew Thomas Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2013-11-11 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Alexander Bachmann; Andrea Tubaro; Neil Barber; Frank d'Ancona; Gordon Muir; Ulrich Witzsch; Marc-Oliver Grimm; Joan Benejam; Jens-Uwe Stolzenburg; Antony Riddick; Sascha Pahernik; Herman Roelink; Filip Ameye; Christian Saussine; Franck Bruyère; Wolfgang Loidl; Tim Larner; Nirjan-Kumar Gogoi; Richard Hindley; Rolf Muschter; Andrew Thorpe; Nitin Shrotri; Stuart Graham; Moritz Hamann; Kurt Miller; Martin Schostak; Carlos Capitán; Helmut Knispel; J Andrew Thomas Journal: J Urol Date: 2014-09-16 Impact factor: 7.450