PMC full text:
Published online 2018 May 12. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012551.pub3
Summary of findings 10
Transrectal thermotherapy (add‐on) compared to medical treatment alone for chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome
| Transrectal thermotherapy (add‐on) compared to medical treatment alone for chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome | |||||
| Patient or population: participants with chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome Setting: outpatient, China and Korea Intervention: transrectal thermotherapy in addition to medical therapy Comparison: medical treatment alone | |||||
| Outcomes | № of participants (studies) Follow‐up | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Relative effect (95% CI) | Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI) | |
| Risk with medical treatment alone | Risk difference with transrectal thermotherapy (add‐on) | ||||
| Prostatitis symptoms assessed with: NIH‐CPSI score Scale from: 0 to 43 follow‐up: 6 to 12 weeks Benefit is indicated by lower scores | 145 (2 RCTs) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ Low1 | ‐ | The mean prostatitis symptom score ranged from 14.33 to 17.19 | MD 4.34 lower (5.65 lower to 3.04 lower) |
| Adverse events ‐ not reported | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ |
| Sexual dysfunction ‐ not reported | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ |
| Quality of life ‐ not reported | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ |
| Depression and anxiety ‐ not reported | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ |
| *The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: confidence interval; MD: mean difference; NIH‐CPSI: National Institutes of Health ‐ Chronic Prostatitis Symptom Index; RCT: randomised controlled trial. | |||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect. Moderate quality: we are moderately confident in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different. Low quality: our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect. Very low quality: we have very little confidence in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect. | |||||
1Downgraded 2 levels due to high risk of allocation concealment bias, performance and detection bias (study not blinded) and high risk of attrition bias.