Effect of the Combination Treatment of Uro-Dr™ and Medical Therapy for Chronic Prostatitis/Chronic Pelvic Pain Syndrome: A Prospective Study

Non‐pharmacological interventions for treating chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome: a Cochrane systematic review

“…Compared with medical therapy, TRT may have decreased prostatitis symptoms, measured by NIH‐CPSI score at 6‐ to 12‐week follow‐up (MD −2.50, 95% CI −3.82 to −1.18; I 2 = 0%). Only one of the two studies in this comparison reported the results of the subscores; these lower scores were observed for urinary symptoms and QoL, but not for the pain domain.…”

“…Compared with medical therapy alone, TRT plus medical therapy may have decreased prostatitis symptoms, measured by NIH‐CPSI score at 6‐ to 12‐week follow‐up (MD −4.34, 95% CI −5.65 to −3.04; I 2 = 0%). Only one of these studies in this comparison reported the results of the subscores; these lower scores were observed across the subscores of pain, urinary symptoms and QoL. The QoE was low because of a high risk of allocation concealment bias, performance and detection bias (the study was not blinded), and a high risk of attrition bias.…”

“…Most studies included ambulatory care; however, some interventions, depending on the type, required a temporary stay in hospital, particularly in those studies that used therapeutic devices. The studies were conducted in Egypt [39,40], China [41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50], the USA [51], Italy [52][53][54][55], Switzerland [56], Turkey [57][58][59], Korea [60][61][62][63], Finland [64], Germany [65], Canada [66], Montenegro [67], the UK [68,69], Nigeria [70], Iran [71], Russia [72,73] and Austria [74]. Two studies were conducted in more than one country [75,76].…”

“…Thirteen studies specified an adequate method of random sequence generation [41,50,51,55,56,58,59,60,63,65,67,68,75,76]. The remaining studies were at unclear risk of bias of random sequence generation.…”

“…Six studies specified an adequate method of allocation concealment [48,51,56,65,67,75]. Two studies specified that they did not conceal the allocation of participants and were deemed to have a high risk of bias in this domain [52,63]. The remaining studies were at unclear risk of bias in allocation concealment.…”