Advertisement

World Journal of Urology

, Volume 36, Issue 9, pp 1501–1502 | Cite as

Suprapubic versus urethral catheter drainage in robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: advancing systematic review quality

  • Eu Chang Hwang
  • Michael C. Risk
  • Philipp Dahm
Letter to the Editor
  • 40 Downloads

Notes

Author contribution

HEC: data collection and management, data analysis, and manuscript writing/editing. RM: manuscript writing/editing. DP: project development, data collection and management, data analysis, and manuscript writing/editing.

Funding

None.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Hwang EC: None; Risk MC: None; Dahm P: None.

Ethical standard

This study was carried out in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki of 1975, as revised in 2008.

References

  1. 1.
    Bertolo R, Tracey A, Dasgupta P, Rocco B, Micali S, Bianchi G et al (2018) Supra-pubic versus urethral catheter after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: systematic review of current evidence. World J Urol.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-018-2275-x Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, Thuku M, Hamel C, Moran J et al (2017) AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ 358:j4008CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Clark HD, Wells GA, Huet C, McAlister FA, Salmi LR, Fergusson D et al (1999) Assessing the quality of randomized trials: reliability of the Jadad scale. Control Clin Trials 20(5):448–452CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Deeks JJ, Dinnes J, D’Amico R, Sowden AJ, Sakarovitch C, Song F et al (2003) Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies. Health Technol Assess 7(27):1–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Prasad SM, Large MC, Patel AR et al (2014) Early removal of urethral catheter with suprapubic tube drainage versus urethral catheter drainage alone after robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Urol 192(1):89–95CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Higgins JPT, Deeks JJ (2011) Chapter 7: Selecting studies and collecting data. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (ed), Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration. www.handbook.cochrane.org. Accessed Mar 2011
  7. 7.
    Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Vist GE, Falck-Ytter Y, Schünemann HJ et al (2008) What is “quality of evidence” and why is it important to clinicians? BMJ 336(7651):995–998CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Yang CJ, Ou YC, Yang CK (2015) Percutaneous cystostomy drainage for early removing urethral catheter in robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: improving on patients’ discomfort. Urol Sci 26:240–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Brozek J, Alonso-Coello P, Rind D et al (2011) GRADE guidelines 6. Rating the quality of evidence–imprecision. J Clin Epidemiol 64:1283–1293CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Martinschek A, Pfalzgraf D, Rafail B, Ritter M, Heinrich E, Trojan L (2016) Transurethral versus suprapubic catheter at robotassisted radical prostatectomy: a prospective randomized trial with 1-year follow-up. World J Urol 34(3):407–411CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of UrologyChonnam National University Medical SchoolGwangjuRepublic of Korea
  2. 2.Urology Section Minneapolis Veterans Healthcare System and Department of UrologyUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations