Table 1.
First Author | Publication Year |
Study Location | Data Collection Period |
Participant Age Range at the Time of Prostatitis Assessment |
Method of Prostatitis Assessment |
Cases/Controls1 | Type of Controls |
OR (95% CI)2 | Methods used to Reduce Detection Bias3 |
Quality Score4 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cohort and Nested Case-Control (n=10) | ||||||||||
Rybicki | 2016 | USA | 1990-2002 | -- | MR | 574/574 | NCC | 0.82 (0.58-1.15) | 2, 3 | 4 |
Vaarala | 2016 | Finland | 1996-2012 | 20-59 | SAQ | 40/1,732 | -- | 2.64 (2.14-3.11)5 | -- | 2 |
Hung | 2013 | Taiwan | 1996-2008 | 67 (mean) | MR | 1,184/4,736 | NCC | 9.77 (3.09-30.9) | 2 | 3 |
Cheng | 2010 | USA | 2002-2006 | 45-69 | SAQ | 1,631/66,210 | -- | 1.30 (1.10-1.54) | 1, 2 | 5 |
Weinmann | 2010 | USA | 1964-2000 | 45-84 | MR | 768/929 | NCC | 1.0 (0.79-1.4) | 3 | 5 |
Daniels | 2009 | USA | 1996-2006 | 51-99 | MR | 65/195 | NCC | 0.37 (0.01-2.82)5 | 2 | 3 |
Huang | 2008 | USA | 1993-2001 | 60-69 (IQR) | SAQ | 868/1,283 | NCC | 1.34 (0.98-1.84)5 | 2 | 2 |
Sutcliffe | 2006 | USA | 1992-2002 | 46-81 | SAQ | 2,230/33,356 | -- | 1.08 (0.96-1.20) | 1, 2 | 7 |
Zhu | 1996 | USA | 1989-1991 | 40-69 | MR/SAQ | 151/243 | NCC | 1.11 (0.56-2.21)5 | 1 | 4 |
Hiatt | 1994 | USA | 1978-1985 | ≥30 | MR | 177/177 | NCC | 1.1 (0.5-2.3) | 1 | 6 |
Retrospective Studies (n=28) | ||||||||||
AlQadire | 2018 | Jordan | 2016 | 21-93 | MR | 165/177 | Hospital | 4.76 (2.63-9.09)6 | -- | 3 |
Doat | 2017 | France | 2012-2013 | 40-75 | INT | 819/879 | POP | 1.48 (1.05-2.12)5 | -- | 4 |
Nair-Shalliker | 2017 | Australia | 2006-2014 | 19-94 | SAQ | 1,180/862 | Other7 | 2.30 (1.44-3.70) | 3 | 4 |
Boehm | 2016 | Canada | 2005-2012 | 59-70 | INT | 1,884/1,965 | POP | 1.81 (1.44-2.27) | 2, 3 | 6 |
Hennis | 2013 | Barbados | 2002-2011 | 67 (mean) | INT | 963/941 | POP | 3.16 (1.92-5.19) | -- | 8 |
Wright | 2012 | USA | 1993-2005 | 35-74 | INT | 1,752/1645 | POP | 1.62 (1.29-2.03)5 | 1 | 4 |
Hosseini | 2010 | Iran | 2005-2008 | -- | INT | 137/137 | POP | 31.5 (9.2-170.5) | -- | 5 |
Liu | 2007 | China | 2000-2006 | 40-86 (cases) | SAQ | 40/60 | POP | 4.67 (1.35-16.15)5 | -- | 3 |
Hospital | 6.33 (1.62-24.77)5 | |||||||||
Pelucchi | 2006 | Italy | 1985-1992 | <80 | INT | 280/689 | Hospital | 0.53 (0.10-2.68) | -- | 6 |
Sarma | 2006 | USA | 1996-2001 | 40-79 | INT | 129/703 | POP | 4.93 (2.79-8.74) | 3 | 6 |
Daniels | 2005 | USA | 2000-2002 | ≥65 | SAQ | 695/5125 | -- | 5.40 (4.42-6.60) | 2, 3 | 2 |
Patel | 2005 | USA | 1996-1998 | 50-74 | INT | 669/596 | POP | 1.8 (1.1-2.9) | -- | 7 |
Lightfoot | 2004 | Canada | 1995-1998 | 45-84 | INT/SAQ | 741/1,608 | POP | 0.73 (0.48-1.11) | 1 | 6 |
Roberts | 2004 | USA | 1979-1997 | 70 (median) | MR | 409/803 | POP | 1.7 (1.1-2.6)8 | 1 | 5 |
Bock | 2003 | USA | 1995-2002 | 31-84 | SAQ | 60/64 | --9 | 3.59 (1.20-10.70)5 | -- | 3 |
Ritchie | 2003 | USA | 2000-2001 | 44-85 | SAQ | 58/99 | Hospital | 3.44 (1.30-9.13) | -- | 4 |
Ning | 2000 | China | 1997-1999 | -- | INT | 96/96 | POP | 7.00 (3.34-14.68)5 | -- | 4 |
Hospital | 10.27 (4.67-22.55)5 | |||||||||
Wang | 1996 | China | 1989-1992 | 40 - 80 | INT | 117/296 | POP | 4.86 (2.57-9.20) | -- | 5 |
Hospital | 6.57 (2.75-15.65) | |||||||||
John | 1995 | USA/Canada | 1987-1991 | 70 (mean) | INT | 1,642/1,636 | POP | 2.81 (2.32-3.41)5 | -- | 4 |
Wei | 1994 | China | -- | - | INT | 27/54 | Hospital | 5.26 (1.07-28.80) | -- | 3 |
Nakata | 1993 | Japan | 1985-1990 | 53-93 | SAQ | 294/294 | POP | 4.46 (2.71-7.36) | -- | 4 |
Honda | 1988 | USA | 1979-1982 | ≤60 | INT | 216/216 | POP | 2.2 (1.2-4.3) | -- | 5 |
Checkoway | 1987 | USA | 1984-1985 | 50+ | INT | 40/64 | BPH | 0.38 (0.01-4.11)5 | 2 | 3 |
Mishina | 1985 | Japan | -- | 47-86 | INT | 100/100 | POP | 1.64 (0.77-3.47)5,10 | 2 | 4 |
Ross | 1983 | USA | 1972-1982 | <80 | INT | 110/110 | POP | 1.20 (0.48-3.10)5 | -- | 6 |
Baker | 1981 | USA | 1977-1979 | 54-79 | INT/SAQ | 44/90 | --11 | 0.24 (0.01-1.89)5 | 2 | 3 |
Niijma | 1980 | Japan | 1963-1978 | 40-90 | MR | 187/200 | Hospital | 1.00 (0.65-1.53)12 | -- | 1 |
Wynder | 1971 | USA | 1965-1969 | 35-89 | INT | 300/400 | Hospital | 2.34 (0.91-6.02)5 | 1 | 2 |
Abbreviations: OR-Odds ratio, IQR-inter quartile range, SAQ-self-administered questionnaire, MR-medical record, INT-Interview, White-W, Black-B, Hispanic-H, Other-Other race, DK-Unknown race, NCC-Nested case-control, POP-population-based controls.
Values indicate non-missing prostatitis responses.
Primary OR estimate presented in either the abstract, main table, or conclusion of the manuscript, or in a previous meta-analysis.
Detection bias methodology: (1) Excluding proximal prostatitis diagnoses (ie., near in time to prostate cancer diagnosis); (2) Stratification or restriction based on prostate cancer screening; (3) Adjustment by prostate cancer screening; (--) No method used to reduce detection bias.
Quality scores: (1-3) Low Quality; (4-5) Moderate Quality; (6-10) High Quality.
Calculated from contingency table values within the article with confidence intervals estimated using Cornfield’s method or exact tests when expected cell frequencies < %5.
Based on the text and crude OR, assumed that the adjusted OR was presented in an inverse fashion.
Spouses of other cancer patients.
We selected this estimate for our “best estimate” analysis acknowledging that many estimates were provided within this study, but that this estimated reported in the abstract represented the summary effect estimate.
Entire study population was selected due to a prior family history of prostate cancer or prostate conditions.
Exposure defined as history of prostatitis or urethritis.
Entire study population was cross-sectionally selected due to an underlying BPH diagnosis.
Value presented as no association within the article, so OR=1.0 assumed and 95%CI estimated based on number of cases and controls and estimated prevalence of prostatitis in other early studies.