Table 26:
GRADE Evidence Profile for Robot-Assisted Versus Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy for Erectile Function
| # Studies (Design) | Risk of Bias | Inconsistency | Indirectness | Imprecision | Publication Bias | Upgrade Considerations | Quality |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 RCTs | Serious limitations (−1)a | Serious limitations (−1)b | No serious limitations | No serious limitations | Undetected | None | ⊕⊕ Low |
| 4 non-RCTs | Serious limitations (−1)c | Serious limitations (−1)b | No serious limitations | Serious limitations (−1)d | Undetected | None | ⊕ Very low |
Abbreviations: GRADE, Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation; RCT, randomized controlled trial.
a
No intention-to-treat analysis.
b
Inconsistent (nonsignificant vs. significant) results.
c
Nonrandomized studies start at low GRADE. Differences in baseline patient, cancer, or surgeon characteristics may impact potency outcomes without adjustment.
d
Use of nonvalidated and possibly subjective outcome measures in some studies for dichotomous potency outcomes. Nonstandardized reporting within studies makes it difficult to directly compare studies.