Assessing Prognostic Studies of Tubularized Incised Plate Urethroplasty in Hypospadias: A Systematic Review of Methodological Rigor.

IF 1.8 3区 医学 Q3 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
Prinnisa A Jonardi, Gerhard Reinaldi Situmorang, Irfan Wahyudi, Arry Rodjani, Tariq Abbas, Putu Angga Risky Raharja
{"title":"Assessing Prognostic Studies of Tubularized Incised Plate Urethroplasty in Hypospadias: A Systematic Review of Methodological Rigor.","authors":"Prinnisa A Jonardi, Gerhard Reinaldi Situmorang, Irfan Wahyudi, Arry Rodjani, Tariq Abbas, Putu Angga Risky Raharja","doi":"10.1111/iju.70131","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Hypospadias is a congenital anomaly of male genitalia that requires surgical correction to achieve normal anatomy and function. Tubularized incised plate urethroplasty (TIP) is a common repair method, but prognostic studies of TIP outcomes are limited by their methodological quality. This systematic review evaluates the methodological rigor of prognostic studies on TIP urethroplasty in hypospadias cases, employing the Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) Cochrane tool.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Following PRISMA guidelines, a systematic review of single-arm prognostic studies of TIP was conducted. Inclusion criteria were primary studies (first attempt of surgery), evaluating prognostic factors and outcomes, with the QUIPS tool used for quality assessment. Review studies and reports without full text were excluded. Inter-rater agreement was then evaluated using Cohen's kappa analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 14 included studies, most exhibited low risk of bias (RoB). Inter-rater agreement varied across domains, being strongest for statistical analysis (κ = 0.89) and weakest for prognostic factor measurement (κ = 0.42). Nevertheless, overall assessment showed minimal agreement (κ = 0.49), indicating poor reliability of the included studies. Our findings highlight biases inherent in existing literature, particularly with respect to outcome measurement domains, underscoring the need for standardized methods and validated patient-reported outcomes. Selection bias and lack of standardized outcome measures pose significant challenges in interpreting study findings.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Low inter-rater agreement indicates methodological shortcomings in prognostic studies of TIP in the context of hypospadias. Future research should prioritize methodological rigor to enhance the reliability and generalizability of findings, thus improving clinical practice and future patient outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":14323,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Urology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Urology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/iju.70131","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Hypospadias is a congenital anomaly of male genitalia that requires surgical correction to achieve normal anatomy and function. Tubularized incised plate urethroplasty (TIP) is a common repair method, but prognostic studies of TIP outcomes are limited by their methodological quality. This systematic review evaluates the methodological rigor of prognostic studies on TIP urethroplasty in hypospadias cases, employing the Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) Cochrane tool.

Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines, a systematic review of single-arm prognostic studies of TIP was conducted. Inclusion criteria were primary studies (first attempt of surgery), evaluating prognostic factors and outcomes, with the QUIPS tool used for quality assessment. Review studies and reports without full text were excluded. Inter-rater agreement was then evaluated using Cohen's kappa analysis.

Results: Among 14 included studies, most exhibited low risk of bias (RoB). Inter-rater agreement varied across domains, being strongest for statistical analysis (κ = 0.89) and weakest for prognostic factor measurement (κ = 0.42). Nevertheless, overall assessment showed minimal agreement (κ = 0.49), indicating poor reliability of the included studies. Our findings highlight biases inherent in existing literature, particularly with respect to outcome measurement domains, underscoring the need for standardized methods and validated patient-reported outcomes. Selection bias and lack of standardized outcome measures pose significant challenges in interpreting study findings.

Conclusion: Low inter-rater agreement indicates methodological shortcomings in prognostic studies of TIP in the context of hypospadias. Future research should prioritize methodological rigor to enhance the reliability and generalizability of findings, thus improving clinical practice and future patient outcomes.

评估尿道下裂行管状切开钢板尿道成形术的预后研究:方法严谨性的系统回顾。
简介:尿道下裂是男性生殖器的先天性异常,需要手术矫正才能达到正常的解剖和功能。管状切开钢板尿道成形术(TIP)是一种常见的修复方法,但TIP结果的预后研究受到其方法学质量的限制。本系统综述采用预后质量研究(QUIPS) Cochrane工具,评估尿道下裂病例TIP尿道成形术预后研究的方法学严谨性。方法:遵循PRISMA指南,对TIP单臂预后研究进行系统回顾。纳入标准为初步研究(第一次手术尝试),评估预后因素和结果,使用QUIPS工具进行质量评估。没有全文的综述性研究和报告被排除在外。然后使用Cohen的kappa分析评估评分者之间的一致性。结果:在纳入的14项研究中,大多数显示低偏倚风险(RoB)。各域间的一致性不同,在统计分析中一致性最强(κ = 0.89),在预后因素测量中一致性最弱(κ = 0.42)。然而,总体评估显示最小的一致性(κ = 0.49),表明纳入研究的可靠性较差。我们的研究结果突出了现有文献中固有的偏见,特别是在结果测量领域,强调了标准化方法和经过验证的患者报告结果的必要性。选择偏差和缺乏标准化的结果测量对解释研究结果提出了重大挑战。结论:较低的评分一致性表明在尿道下裂背景下的TIP预后研究中存在方法学上的缺陷。未来的研究应优先考虑方法的严谨性,以提高研究结果的可靠性和普遍性,从而改善临床实践和未来的患者预后。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
International Journal of Urology
International Journal of Urology 医学-泌尿学与肾脏学
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
11.50%
发文量
340
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: International Journal of Urology is the official English language journal of the Japanese Urological Association, publishing articles of scientific excellence in urology. Submissions of papers from all countries are considered for publication. All manuscripts are subject to peer review and are judged on the basis of their contribution of original data and ideas or interpretation.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信