Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
3.6
2.6
Journals
Medicina
Special Issues
Meta-Analysis on Urology
share announcement

Meta-Analysis on Urology

A special issue of Medicina (ISSN 1648-9144). This special issue belongs to the section "Urology & Nephrology".

Deadline for manuscript submissions: closed (30 April 2023) | Viewed by 15443

Special Issue Editors

Dr. Joo Yong Lee

E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
Department of Urology, Severance Hospital, Urological Science Institute, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
Interests: urology; urolithiasis; microbiome; urinary tract infection; reconstruction surgery
Dr. Kang Su Cho

E-Mail Website
Co-Guest Editor
Department of Urology, Gangnam Severance Hospital, Urological Science Institute, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
Interests: nephroureterectomy; urinary tract; ureteroscopy

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues,

Urology comprises of a variety of topics, including prostate cancer, bladder cancer, renal cancer, testicular cancer, penile cancer, urolithiasis, sexual and reproductive health, LUTS/BPH, chronic pelvic pain, urological infections, neuro-urology, urological trauma, etc.

The incidence of urological diseases is increasing due to the global population becoming older. Urological diseases are widespread among the elderly, and are associated with a poor quality of life. As a result, socio-economic cost also increases.

There is plenty of cutting-edge research in urology (anticancer agents, minimally invasive surgery, the role of the microbiome in urine, etc.) and many debates.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of these debates could be helpful in real clinical settings.

Systematic reviews are research works incorporating the best available scientific studies for a particular research subject. A systematic review is a research process that includes a comprehensive and systematic literature search, the selection of literature based on predetermined inclusion/exclusion criteria, and the risk assessment of the selected literature. A meta-analysis is a research method statistically synthesizing data from primary studies selected from a systematic literature review. A network meta-analysis compares multiple interventions (three or more) and therapies using direct and indirect comparisons from a network of studies.

We invite colleagues worldwide to report their systematic reviews and meta-analyses in urology for evidence-based treatments in this Special Issue, welcoming meta-analyses concerning any urological issue.

Dr. Joo Yong Lee
Dr. Kang Su Cho
Guest Editors

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a single-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Medicina is an international peer-reviewed open access monthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 1800 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

Keywords

  • systematic review
  • meta-analysis
  • network meta-analysis
  • evidence-based medicine
  • urology

Published Papers (5 papers)

Download All Papers
Order results
Result details
Show export options expand_more Show export options expand_less
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:

Other

20 pages, 1603 KiB  
Systematic Review
Fosfomycin for Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Men Undergoing a Transrectal Prostate Biopsy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
by Hui Mo Gu, Jin Seok Gu, Ho Seok Chung, Seung Il Jung, Dongdeuk Kwon, Myung Ha Kim, Jae Hung Jung, Mi Ah Han, Seung Ji Kang, Eu Chang Hwang and Philipp Dahm
Medicina 2023, 59(5), 911; https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina59050911 - 10 May 2023
Cited by 5 | Viewed by 2131
Abstract
Background and Objectives: To assess the effects of fosfomycin compared with other antibiotics as a prophylaxis for urinary tract infections (UTIs) in men undergoing transrectal prostate biopsies. Materials and Methods: We searched multiple databases and trial registries without publication language or status restrictions [...] Read more.
Background and Objectives: To assess the effects of fosfomycin compared with other antibiotics as a prophylaxis for urinary tract infections (UTIs) in men undergoing transrectal prostate biopsies. Materials and Methods: We searched multiple databases and trial registries without publication language or status restrictions until 4 January 2022. Parallel-group randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies (NRS) were included. The primary outcomes were febrile UTI, afebrile UTI, and overall UTI. We used GRADE guidance to rate the certainty of evidence of RCTs and NRSs. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022302743). Results: We found data on five comparisons; however, this abstract focuses on the primary outcomes of the two most clinically relevant comparisons. Regarding fosfomycin versus fluoroquinolone, five RCTs and four NRSs with a one-month follow-up were included. Based on the RCT evidence, fosfomycin likely resulted in little to no difference in febrile UTIs compared with fluoroquinolone. This difference corresponded to four fewer febrile UTIs per 1000 patients. Fosfomycin likely resulted in little to no difference in afebrile UTIs compared with fluoroquinolone. This difference corresponded to 29 fewer afebrile UTIs per 1000 patients. Fosfomycin likely resulted in little to no difference in overall UTIs compared with fluoroquinolone. This difference corresponded to 35 fewer overall UTIs per 1000 patients. Regarding fosfomycin and fluoroquinolone combined versus fluoroquinolone, two NRSs with a one- to three-month follow-up were included. Based on the NRS evidence, fosfomycin and fluoroquinolone combined may result in little to no difference in febrile UTIs compared with fluoroquinolone. This difference corresponded to 16 fewer febrile UTIs per 1000 patients. Conclusions: Compared with fluoroquinolone, fosfomycin or fosfomycin and fluoroquinolone combined may have a similar prophylactic effect on UTIs after a transrectal prostate biopsy. Given the increasing fluoroquinolone resistance and its ease to use, fosfomycin may be a good option for antibiotic prophylaxis. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Meta-Analysis on Urology)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

11 pages, 2972 KiB  
Systematic Review
Silodosin versus Tamsulosin for Medical Expulsive Therapy of Ureteral Stones: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
by Hae Do Jung, Kang Su Cho, Dae Young Jun, Jae Yong Jeong, Young Joon Moon, Doo Yong Chung, Dong Hyuk Kang, Seok Cho and Joo Yong Lee
Medicina 2022, 58(12), 1794; https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina58121794 - 06 Dec 2022
Cited by 1 | Viewed by 3711
Abstract
Background and Objectives: This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was performed to compare the therapeutic effects and safety profiles of silodosin and tamsulosin for medical expulsive therapy (MET) of ureteral stones. Materials and Methods: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, the [...] Read more.
Background and Objectives: This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was performed to compare the therapeutic effects and safety profiles of silodosin and tamsulosin for medical expulsive therapy (MET) of ureteral stones. Materials and Methods: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science to identify articles published before July 2022 that described randomized controlled trials comparing silodosin and tamsulosin for MET of ureteral stones. Endpoints were stone expulsion rate, stone expulsion time, and total complication rate. Results: In total, 14 studies were included in our analysis. The size of ureteral stones was <1 cm. Compared with tamsulosin, silodosin resulted in a significantly higher stone expulsion rate (p < 0.01, odds ratio (OR) = 2.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.91 to 3.06, I2 = 0%) and significantly shorter stone expulsion time (p < 0.01, mean difference = −3.04, 95% CI = −4.46 to −1.63, I2 = 89%). The total complication rate did not significantly differ between silodosin and tamsulosin (p = 0.33, OR = 1.15, 95% CI = 0.87 to 1.52, I2 = 7%). Conclusions: Compared with tamsulosin, silodosin resulted in significantly better expulsion of ureteral stones <1 cm. The total complication rate did not significantly differ between silodosin and tamsulosin. Thus, silodosin may be superior to tamsulosin for MET of ureter stones <1 cm. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Meta-Analysis on Urology)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

12 pages, 5464 KiB  
Systematic Review
Surveillance versus Adjuvant Treatment with Chemotherapy or Radiotherapy for Stage I Seminoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis According to EAU COVID-19 Recommendations
by Dong Hyuk Kang, Kang Su Cho, Jae Yong Jeong, Young Joon Moon, Doo Yong Chung, Hae Do Jung and Joo Yong Lee
Medicina 2022, 58(11), 1514; https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina58111514 - 24 Oct 2022
Cited by 1 | Viewed by 1665
Abstract
Background and Objectives: During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak, the European Association of Urology (EAU) Guidelines Office Rapid Reaction Group (GORRG) recommended that patients with clinical stage I (CSI) seminoma be offered active surveillance (AS). This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the [...] Read more.
Background and Objectives: During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak, the European Association of Urology (EAU) Guidelines Office Rapid Reaction Group (GORRG) recommended that patients with clinical stage I (CSI) seminoma be offered active surveillance (AS). This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy of AS versus adjuvant treatment with chemotherapy or radiotherapy for improving the overall survival (OS) of CSI seminoma patients. Materials and Methods: A systematic review was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched. The primary outcome was 5-year OS, and the secondary outcome was the 5-year relapse-free survival (RFS). The outcomes were analyzed as odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: A total of 14 studies were included. Overall, the quality scores were relatively high, and little publication bias was noted. In terms of the 5-year OS, 7 studies were analyzed; there was no significant difference between AS and adjuvant treatment (OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.41–2.39; p = 0.97). In terms of 5-year RFS, 12 studies were analyzed. Adjuvant treatment reduced the risk of 5-year recurrence by 85% compared with AS (OR, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.08–0.26; p < 0.001). Conclusions: In terms of the OS in CSI seminoma patients, no intergroup difference was noted, so it is reasonable to offer AS, as recommended by the EAU GORRG until the end of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, since there is a large intergroup difference in the recurrence rate, further research on the long-term (>5 years) outcomes is warranted. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Meta-Analysis on Urology)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

11 pages, 1781 KiB  
Systematic Review
The Effect and Safety of Rapid and Gradual Urinary Decompression in Urine Retention: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
by Meng-Yu Wu, Jer-Ruey Chang, Yi-Kung Lee, Po-Chen Lin and Tou-Yuan Tsai
Medicina 2022, 58(10), 1441; https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina58101441 - 13 Oct 2022
Cited by 1 | Viewed by 4858
Abstract
Background and objectives: Trials to evaluate the effect and safety of rapid and gradual urinary decompression have been published for decades. Due to inconclusive results, this study aimed to assess whether rapid bladder decompression increased complications in adults with acute urinary retention. Materials [...] Read more.
Background and objectives: Trials to evaluate the effect and safety of rapid and gradual urinary decompression have been published for decades. Due to inconclusive results, this study aimed to assess whether rapid bladder decompression increased complications in adults with acute urinary retention. Materials and Methods: We searched the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and PubMed databases for articles published from the database inception to 31 August 2021. Studies that compared the effects and complication rates of rapid and gradual urinary decompression in adults with acute urinary retention were included. The primary outcome was post-decompression hematuria, while the secondary outcome was circulatory collapse. Meta-analyses were conducted using random effects models. Sensitivity analyses, tests for publication bias, and trial sequential analyses were conducted. The PROSPERO registration number is CRD42021233457. Results: Overall, four articles were included in the comprehensive analysis, and 435 participants met all the eligibility criteria. In the primary meta-analysis of all four study groups, rapid urinary decompression did not increase the risk of post-decompression hematuria (RR = 0.91; 95% CI: 0.62 to 1.35; p = 0.642). The I2 statistic was 0.0% (p = 0.732), indicating no substantial heterogeneity. In the meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies, the result did not change (RR = 0.89; 95% CI: 0.31 to 2.52; p = 0.824). The Egger’s test and Begg test (p = 0.339 and 0.497, respectively) indicated the absence of statistical evidence of publication bias. Leave-one-out sensitivity analysis was conducted and showed the pooled results were robust. In secondary outcome, there were no reported events of circulatory collapse in the current studies. Conclusions: The currently available data suggest that rapid urinary decompression is an effective and safe method with a complication rate similar to that of gradual decompression in an acute urinary retention population. Further large-scale randomized studies are required. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Meta-Analysis on Urology)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

15 pages, 5609 KiB  
Systematic Review
Comparison of Surgical Outcomes between Single-Use and Reusable Flexible Ureteroscopes for Renal Stone Management: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
by Dae Young Jun, Kang Su Cho, Jae Yong Jeong, Young Joon Moon, Dong Hyuk Kang, Hae Do Jung and Joo Yong Lee
Medicina 2022, 58(10), 1388; https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina58101388 - 03 Oct 2022
Cited by 5 | Viewed by 2213
Abstract
Background and Objectives: Disposable flexible ureteroscopes have been widely used because of their cost-effectiveness and higher sterility potential compared with reusable flexible ureteroscopes. This study aimed to compare the surgical outcomes and complication rates in patients who undergo reusable or disposable flexible [...] Read more.
Background and Objectives: Disposable flexible ureteroscopes have been widely used because of their cost-effectiveness and higher sterility potential compared with reusable flexible ureteroscopes. This study aimed to compare the surgical outcomes and complication rates in patients who undergo reusable or disposable flexible ureteroscopic stone surgeries (fURS) for urinary stone disease. Materials and Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted under the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline. This systematic review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022331291). Clinical trials comparing reusable and disposable fURS for stone disease were found from PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and the Web of Science up to March 2022. Participants were patients with upper urinary tract stones; the interventions were reusable or disposable fURS. Outcomes, including stone-free rate, operation time, length of hospital stay, and complication rate, were compared for analysis. Results: Overall, 111 studies were identified, but after removing duplicate studies, 75 studies remained. Thirty-two of these studies were excluded. Of the 43 screened studies, 11 met the eligibility criteria. There was no difference in the stone-free rate (SFR) between disposable and reusable fURS (p = 0.14; OR = 1.36; 95% CI, 0.9 to 2.04). For operation time, no difference was identified between reusable and disposable fURS groups (p = 0.12; MD = −5.31; 95% CI, −12.08 to 1.46). For hospital stay, there was also no difference between the two groups (p = 0.61; MD = −0.03; 95% CI, −0.17 to 0.10). There was no significant difference in complication rate between the two groups (p = 0.85; OR = 0.95; 95% CI, 0.56 to 1.61). Conclusions: There were no differences in the SFR, operation time, length of hospital stay, and complication rate between reusable and disposable fURS. Disposable fURS may be a comparable alternative to reusable fURS. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Meta-Analysis on Urology)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

Show export options expand_more Show export options expand_less
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
 
Displaying articles 1-5
Back to TopTop