Table 2.
Evidence overview of prostatic urethral lift versus sham
| Outcome | Number of trials (evaluated) | Intervention | Control | Absolute risk difference (95% CI) | Relative risk (95% CI) | Quality of evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % (n/N) or mean change | % (n/N) or mean change | |||||
| Responders, based on the IPSS | NR | |||||
| IPSS, mean change from baseline: long-term follow-up (>12 mo) | No data long term; greater with PUL at 3 mo | |||||
| IPSS-QoL, mean change from baseline: long-term follow-up (>12 mo) | No data long term; greater with PUL at 3 mo | |||||
| Need for reoperation | 1 (206) | 0 (0/140) | 0 (0/66) | No difference between groups 0% (NA) | NA | |
| Transfusion | NR | |||||
| Urinary incontinence | 1 (206) | 4 (5/140) | 2 (1/66) | 2.1% (–2.2 to 6.3) | 2.4 (0.3–19.8) | Very lowa |
CI = confidence intervals; IPSS = International Prostate Symptom Score; NA = not applicable; NR = not reported; PUL = prostatic urethral lift; QoL = quality of life.
Downgraded based on the following:
a
Very wide confidence interval and few events.