Photoselective vaporization of the prostate: study outcomes as a function of risk of bias, conflicts of interest, and industrial sponsorship.

PURPOSE: To investigate the outcomes of comparative studies on photoselective vaporization of the prostate (PVP) as a function of risk of bias (RoB), conflicts of interest (COI), and industrial sponsorship (IS). METHODS: We performed a systematic literature search for comparative studies on PVP [randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized comparative studies (NRCSs)]. Study selection as well as comprehensive assessment of RoB, COIs, and IS were performed in duplicate. The identified studies were further rated by two independent board-certified urologists as either PVP-favourable or PVP-unfavourable. Descriptive statistics were performed among all identified studies and among the subgroups of studies rated as favourable and unfavourable, respectively. RESULTS: Sixty-five studies qualified for inclusion (25 RTCs and 40 NRCSs) of which 56 (86%) were rated favourable and 9 (14%) unfavourable. A majority of all studies mentioned the absence/presence of potential COIs (78%). In contrast, a sponsorship statement was only found in 29% of the investigations. Studies rated favourable demonstrated a higher percentage of COIs (39% versus 22%). IS was exclusively found among favourable studies. Furthermore, a serious or critical RoB was more often found in favourably rated NRCSs. CONCLUSIONS: COIs and IS seem to be associated with favourable study outcomes in comparative studies on PVP. The transparency of the whole research process from study conception to the dissemination of the results has to be further improved to prevent a harmful effect of COIs and IS on the internal validity of studies.

Reduction of otorhinolaryngological consultations due to the COVID-19 lockdown and its impact on disease progression.

OBJECTIVES: To compare consultations at the Otorhinolaryngological Department at a tertiary referral centre between the COVID-19 lockdown in 2020 and the same period in 2019, as well as to study the impact of deferring visits on disease progression. METHODS: The emergency consultations during these time periods were analysed retrospectively. The effect of postponing appointments on disease progression was examined for 122 patients with chronic rhinosinusitis, for 50 patients with a benign tumour and for 22 patients with the diagnosis of a malignant tumour. To compare disease progression, patients with the diagnosis of a malignant tumour were matched to patients seen over the same period in 2019. RESULTS: During the lockdown, a reduction of 44.1% in emergency consultations compared with 2019 was observed. The largest significant decrease of consultation numbers was seen for otitis media and for Eustachian tube dysfunction. Fewer patients with tonsillitis sought emergency assistance; however, no difference in frequency of abscesses was observed. Disease progression was seen in 44.4% of patients with chronic rhinosinusitis. In 2020, 18.8% of patients with the diagnosis of a malignant tumour showed disease progression, yet no difference from the previous year was observed. CONCLUSION: Fewer emergency consultations took place during the COVID-19 lockdown; among others, there were fewer visits due to otitis media and tonsillitis. However, no change in the incidence of complications was noted. Almost 50% of patients with chronic rhinosinusitis showed disease progression, leading to prolonged suffering due to the rescheduling of appointments. The treatment of patients with the diagnosis of a malignant tumour was not affected by the postponement of consultations.