Evidence Hub

Comparative effectiveness of oral drug therapies for lower urinary tract symptoms due to benign prostatic hyperplasia: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Xinghuan Wang, Xinghuan Wang, Xinghuan Wang, Xinghuan Wang, Sheng Li, Zhe Meng, Tao Liu, Xinhua Zhang

PloS one, 2014

29,384 participants · 56 citations

Abstract

Introduction: Lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) due to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) are common in elder men and a number of drugs alone or combined are clinically used for this disorder. But available studies investigating the comparative effects of different drug therapies are limited. This study was aimed to compare the efficacy of different drug therapies for LUTS/BPH with network meta-analysis.

Materials and methods: An electronic search of PubMed, Cochrane Library and Embase was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different drug therapies for LUTS/BPH within 24 weeks. Comparative effects were calculated using Aggregate Data Drug Information System. Consistency models of network meta-analysis were created and cumulative probability was used to rank different therapies.

Results: A total 66 RCTs covering seven different therapies with 29384 participants were included. We found that α-blockers (ABs) plus phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitors (PDE5-Is) ranked highest in the test of IPSS total score, storage subscore and voiding subscore. The combination therapy of ABs plus 5α-reductase inhibitors was the best for increasing maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax) with a mean difference (MD) of 1.98 (95% CI, 1.12 to 2.86) as compared to placebo. ABs plus muscarinic receptor antagonists (MRAs) ranked secondly on the reduction of IPSS storage subscore, although monotherapies including MRAs showed no effect on this aspect. Additionally, PDE5-Is alone…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 29,384 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free