We compared ProstaLund Feedback Treatment (PLFT) to transurethral prostate resection (TURP) in te... more We compared ProstaLund Feedback Treatment (PLFT) to transurethral prostate resection (TURP) in terms of efficacy and safety in a pooled analysis of 3 clinical studies with 1-year followup. Overall raw data on 183 patients with PLFT and 65 with TURP were pooled. All studies had identical inclusion criteria, and the efficacy and safety of the method were evaluated using the International Prostate Symptom Score, maximum urine flow (Qmax), responder rate, bother score, prostate volume reduction and adverse events. The response rate was 85.3% and 85.9% in the PLFT and TURP groups, respectively. One-sided 95% CI analysis showed the noninferiority of PLFT vs TURP for this variable. Mean International Prostate Symptom Score was significantly decreased in the PLFT and TURP groups after 12 months (from 20.9 to 6.4 and 20.7 to 7.1, respectively). The 1-sided upper 95% CI of PLFT was within the noninferiority definition compared with that of TURP. The bother score decrease in the PLFT and TURP groups was not significant different (70.9% and 64.0%, respectively). An increase in Qmax from 7.7 to 16.1 ml per second 12 months after PLFT was noted, while the improvement in Qmax in the TURP group was higher (from 7.5 to 18.6 ml per second). The 1-sided lower 95% CI was close (0.76) but it did not attain the predetermined level of noninferiority (0.80). Mean transurethral ultrasound determined volume 12 months after PLFT and TURP was reduced by 32.8% and 58.1%, respectively. A significant correlation between the transurethral ultrasound determined prostate volume reduction and estimated cell kill was found (r = 0.456, p <0.000001). Serious adverse events with causality occurred in 15.4% of patients with TURP compared with 6.0% in those with PLFT (p = 0.035). Combined experience from our pooled analysis indicates that PLFT challenges TURP in terms of efficacy and safety after 1 year of followup.
Objective: As the number of mobile health applications increases, quality assessment becomes a ca... more Objective: As the number of mobile health applications increases, quality assessment becomes a capital feature of any mobile application design. Besides the professional evaluation conducted before marketing the app, the perceptions of the subjects to whom is intended will determine the successful widespread dissemination. Hence, the implementation of a given app may be impaired by the lack of a validated translation and cross-cultural adaptation. We aimed to validate in the Turkish language the User Version of the Mobile Application Rating Scale, an English original scale designed to assess the quality of mobile health applications.Materials and methods:A well-established and predefined process of cross-cultural adaptation and translation to Turkish of the User Version of the Mobile Application Rating Scale according to the World Health Organization guidelines was performed using a common, readily available, free-of-charge application. Internal consistency and reliability were tested in a population sample by Cronbach’s α and rWG index, respectively.Results:The total User Version of the Mobile Application Rating Scale score had good internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.87). Internal consistencies of its subscales were also acceptable: with Cronbach’s α of 0.71, 0.78, 0.71, and 0.73 for engagement, functionality, aesthetics, and information, respectively. Cronbach’s α of the satisfaction subscale was 0.46. The User Version of the Mobile Application Rating Scale total and subscales scores had a strong within-group agreement, all of them with rwg indexes between 0.78 and 0.87 over baseline to 1 month.Conclusion:The Turkish version of the User Version of the Mobile Application Rating Scale is consistent with the English original version and is a reliable and valid tool to assess the quality of mobile applications by Turkish users.
ObjectiveTo compare stent‐related symptoms (SRS) associated with conventional ureteric JJ stent (... more ObjectiveTo compare stent‐related symptoms (SRS) associated with conventional ureteric JJ stent (CUS) placement and SRS associated with placement of a modified complete intra‐ureteric stent (CIUS) with extraction suture, designed to minimize SRS, using the validated Ureteral Stent Symptom Questionnaire (USSQ).Materials and MethodsWe randomized 124 patients who had undergone uncomplicated ureteroscopic lithotripsy into a CIUS and a CUS placement group. USSQ scores were evaluated on postoperative days 1 and 7 (just before stent removal) and 4 weeks after stent removal (control values). Pain scores on a visual analogue scale (VAS) after stent removal were also recorded. Subdomain analysis of all SRS and stent‐related complications were also compared.ResultsNo significant intergroup differences were found in the domain scores for urinary symptoms (P = 0.74), pain (P = 0.32), general health (P = 0.27), work (P = 0.24), or additional problems (P = 0.29). However, a statistically significa...
available at https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32253116/ Editorial Comment: Data from the National ... more available at https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32253116/ Editorial Comment: Data from the National Cancer Database (2015 to 2016) on 183 patients with clear cell histology and Charlson-Deyo index score less than 2 (as a surrogate for good performance status) treated with immunotherapy (IO) with or without cytoreductive nephrectomy (CRN) show that after a median followup of 14.7 months patients who underwent CRN with IO had significantly better survival than those receiving IO alone (HR 0.23). Median overall survival was not reached in the CRN with IO group compared to 11.6 months for patients receiving IO only (p <0.001). On multivariable analysis the receipt of CRN was the only independent predictor of overall survival. In order to evaluate whether the timing of IO administration relative to CRN impacted the outcomes, patients were stratified according to CRN receipt. In the majority of patients CRN was followed by IO, and only 24 patients received CRN after IO. Obviating the limitations of such a small sample comparison, up-front IO with CRN resulted in lower pT stage, grade, tumor size and lymphovascular invasion rates compared to up-front CRN. Of note, 10% of the up-front IO subgroup achieved a complete primary tumor response (pT0), and pathological down staging was twice as frequent as in the group receiving up-front CRN. Lastly, at a median followup of 19 months the number of deaths was much higher in the up-front CRN group vs IO with delayed CRN. The article beautifully illustrates the advantages of registry derived data in terms of reflecting real practice and in formulating hypotheses. While awaiting several prospective ongoing randomized clinical trials exploring the role of IO and CRN in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma, the rate of responses in the group receiving up-front IO strongly suggests that the responses on CRN may be found in the question, “Who is a candidate for CRN after IO?”
ObjectivesTo determine the well‐being of urologists worldwide during the coronavirus disease 2019... more ObjectivesTo determine the well‐being of urologists worldwide during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, and whether they have adequate personal protective equipment knowledge and supplies appropriate to their clinical setting.MethodsUrologists worldwide completed a Société Internationale d’Urologie online survey from 16 April 2020 until 1 May 2020. Analysis was carried out to evaluate their knowledge about protecting themselves and others in the workplace, including their confidence in their ability to remain safe at work, and any regional differences.ResultsThere were 3488 respondents from 109 countries. Urologists who stated they were moderately comfortable that their work environment offers good protection against coronavirus disease 2019 showed a total mean satisfaction level of 5.99 (on a “0 = not at all” to “10 = very” scale). A large majority (86.33%) were confident about protecting themselves from coronavirus disease 2019 at work. However, only about one‐third reported t...
We compared ProstaLund Feedback Treatment (PLFT) to transurethral prostate resection (TURP) in te... more We compared ProstaLund Feedback Treatment (PLFT) to transurethral prostate resection (TURP) in terms of efficacy and safety in a pooled analysis of 3 clinical studies with 1-year followup. Overall raw data on 183 patients with PLFT and 65 with TURP were pooled. All studies had identical inclusion criteria, and the efficacy and safety of the method were evaluated using the International Prostate Symptom Score, maximum urine flow (Qmax), responder rate, bother score, prostate volume reduction and adverse events. The response rate was 85.3% and 85.9% in the PLFT and TURP groups, respectively. One-sided 95% CI analysis showed the noninferiority of PLFT vs TURP for this variable. Mean International Prostate Symptom Score was significantly decreased in the PLFT and TURP groups after 12 months (from 20.9 to 6.4 and 20.7 to 7.1, respectively). The 1-sided upper 95% CI of PLFT was within the noninferiority definition compared with that of TURP. The bother score decrease in the PLFT and TURP groups was not significant different (70.9% and 64.0%, respectively). An increase in Qmax from 7.7 to 16.1 ml per second 12 months after PLFT was noted, while the improvement in Qmax in the TURP group was higher (from 7.5 to 18.6 ml per second). The 1-sided lower 95% CI was close (0.76) but it did not attain the predetermined level of noninferiority (0.80). Mean transurethral ultrasound determined volume 12 months after PLFT and TURP was reduced by 32.8% and 58.1%, respectively. A significant correlation between the transurethral ultrasound determined prostate volume reduction and estimated cell kill was found (r = 0.456, p &amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;0.000001). Serious adverse events with causality occurred in 15.4% of patients with TURP compared with 6.0% in those with PLFT (p = 0.035). Combined experience from our pooled analysis indicates that PLFT challenges TURP in terms of efficacy and safety after 1 year of followup.
Objective: As the number of mobile health applications increases, quality assessment becomes a ca... more Objective: As the number of mobile health applications increases, quality assessment becomes a capital feature of any mobile application design. Besides the professional evaluation conducted before marketing the app, the perceptions of the subjects to whom is intended will determine the successful widespread dissemination. Hence, the implementation of a given app may be impaired by the lack of a validated translation and cross-cultural adaptation. We aimed to validate in the Turkish language the User Version of the Mobile Application Rating Scale, an English original scale designed to assess the quality of mobile health applications.Materials and methods:A well-established and predefined process of cross-cultural adaptation and translation to Turkish of the User Version of the Mobile Application Rating Scale according to the World Health Organization guidelines was performed using a common, readily available, free-of-charge application. Internal consistency and reliability were tested in a population sample by Cronbach’s α and rWG index, respectively.Results:The total User Version of the Mobile Application Rating Scale score had good internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.87). Internal consistencies of its subscales were also acceptable: with Cronbach’s α of 0.71, 0.78, 0.71, and 0.73 for engagement, functionality, aesthetics, and information, respectively. Cronbach’s α of the satisfaction subscale was 0.46. The User Version of the Mobile Application Rating Scale total and subscales scores had a strong within-group agreement, all of them with rwg indexes between 0.78 and 0.87 over baseline to 1 month.Conclusion:The Turkish version of the User Version of the Mobile Application Rating Scale is consistent with the English original version and is a reliable and valid tool to assess the quality of mobile applications by Turkish users.
ObjectiveTo compare stent‐related symptoms (SRS) associated with conventional ureteric JJ stent (... more ObjectiveTo compare stent‐related symptoms (SRS) associated with conventional ureteric JJ stent (CUS) placement and SRS associated with placement of a modified complete intra‐ureteric stent (CIUS) with extraction suture, designed to minimize SRS, using the validated Ureteral Stent Symptom Questionnaire (USSQ).Materials and MethodsWe randomized 124 patients who had undergone uncomplicated ureteroscopic lithotripsy into a CIUS and a CUS placement group. USSQ scores were evaluated on postoperative days 1 and 7 (just before stent removal) and 4 weeks after stent removal (control values). Pain scores on a visual analogue scale (VAS) after stent removal were also recorded. Subdomain analysis of all SRS and stent‐related complications were also compared.ResultsNo significant intergroup differences were found in the domain scores for urinary symptoms (P = 0.74), pain (P = 0.32), general health (P = 0.27), work (P = 0.24), or additional problems (P = 0.29). However, a statistically significa...
available at https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32253116/ Editorial Comment: Data from the National ... more available at https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32253116/ Editorial Comment: Data from the National Cancer Database (2015 to 2016) on 183 patients with clear cell histology and Charlson-Deyo index score less than 2 (as a surrogate for good performance status) treated with immunotherapy (IO) with or without cytoreductive nephrectomy (CRN) show that after a median followup of 14.7 months patients who underwent CRN with IO had significantly better survival than those receiving IO alone (HR 0.23). Median overall survival was not reached in the CRN with IO group compared to 11.6 months for patients receiving IO only (p <0.001). On multivariable analysis the receipt of CRN was the only independent predictor of overall survival. In order to evaluate whether the timing of IO administration relative to CRN impacted the outcomes, patients were stratified according to CRN receipt. In the majority of patients CRN was followed by IO, and only 24 patients received CRN after IO. Obviating the limitations of such a small sample comparison, up-front IO with CRN resulted in lower pT stage, grade, tumor size and lymphovascular invasion rates compared to up-front CRN. Of note, 10% of the up-front IO subgroup achieved a complete primary tumor response (pT0), and pathological down staging was twice as frequent as in the group receiving up-front CRN. Lastly, at a median followup of 19 months the number of deaths was much higher in the up-front CRN group vs IO with delayed CRN. The article beautifully illustrates the advantages of registry derived data in terms of reflecting real practice and in formulating hypotheses. While awaiting several prospective ongoing randomized clinical trials exploring the role of IO and CRN in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma, the rate of responses in the group receiving up-front IO strongly suggests that the responses on CRN may be found in the question, “Who is a candidate for CRN after IO?”
ObjectivesTo determine the well‐being of urologists worldwide during the coronavirus disease 2019... more ObjectivesTo determine the well‐being of urologists worldwide during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, and whether they have adequate personal protective equipment knowledge and supplies appropriate to their clinical setting.MethodsUrologists worldwide completed a Société Internationale d’Urologie online survey from 16 April 2020 until 1 May 2020. Analysis was carried out to evaluate their knowledge about protecting themselves and others in the workplace, including their confidence in their ability to remain safe at work, and any regional differences.ResultsThere were 3488 respondents from 109 countries. Urologists who stated they were moderately comfortable that their work environment offers good protection against coronavirus disease 2019 showed a total mean satisfaction level of 5.99 (on a “0 = not at all” to “10 = very” scale). A large majority (86.33%) were confident about protecting themselves from coronavirus disease 2019 at work. However, only about one‐third reported t...
Uploads
Papers by Pilar Laguna