Association Between Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms and Frailty in Older Men Presenting for Urologic Care.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between non-neurogenic lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) and frailty among treatment-seeking older men. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study of male patients age 65 years and older presenting to an academic urology practice between December 2015 and March 2019. Men with cancer, neurologic disease, indwelling catheter, or continuous leakage were excluded. Participants completed a Timed-Up-and-Go-Test (TUGT) which was used to categorize men as fast (≤10 seconds), intermediate (11-14 seconds), or slow (≥15 seconds). Participants with the following diagnoses were identified using billing codes extracted from the electronic medical record: overactive bladder (OAB), benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), mixed OAB/BPH, or non-LUTS urologic condition. Multivariable associations were evaluated using multinomial logistic regression models adjusted for age, race, and body mass index. RESULTS: Among 2206 men included in our sample, 64% were fast (mean TUGT time: 8.3 ± 1.2 seconds), 25% were intermediate (mean TUGT time: 12.0 ± 1.0 seconds), and 11% were slow (mean TUGT time: 18.5 ± 4.7 seconds). Subjects with slow TUGT times were more likely to be older, non-White, and have LUTS. Compared to non-LUTS conditions, OAB (odds ratio [OR] = 2.62, 95% CI 1.74, 3.93), BPH (OR = 1.70, 95% 1.14, 2.55), and mixed OAB/BPH (OR = 1.82, 95% 1.14, 2.92) were all associated with increased odds of slow TUGT time. LUTS diagnosis was not significantly associated with intermediate TUGT time. CONCLUSION: LUTS diagnosis, particularly OAB, is associated with increased odds of slow TUGT time, a surrogate of frailty, compared to non-LUTS conditions. Frailty is common among older men with LUTS and should be considered during the initial urological evaluation.

The association between frailty and detrusor overactivity in older adults.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the relationship between frailty, age, and detrusor overactivity (DO) in older adults presenting to an academic urology practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study uses the University of California, San Francisco Geriatric Urology Database to examine all adults ages ≥65 years who underwent urodynamic testing from December 2015 to April 2019. All subjects had a timed up and go test (TUGT) as a measure of frailty and were categorized as fast (≤10 seconds), intermediate (11-14 seconds), or slow (≥15 seconds), corresponding to not frail, pre-frail, and frail, respectively. Urodynamic studies were reviewed for the presence of DO. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression were used to examine the relationship between frailty, age, and the presence of DO. RESULTS: In total, 549 older adults underwent urodynamics during the study period, and 48.5% had a study that demonstrated DO. Individuals with DO tended to be older (18.4% vs 11.0% were ≥80 years; P = .01) and more frail (19.5% vs 13.4% with TUGT ≥5 seconds; P < .01). Multivariate regression demonstrated that DO was associated with both pre-frail and frail TUGT times (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.3-3.4; P < .01 for TUGT 11-14 seconds, and aOR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.1-4.0; P = .02 for TUGT ≥15 seconds). Age was not found to be significantly associated with DO (P's > .05). CONCLUSIONS: Frailty, not age, is associated with DO among older adults undergoing urodynamics. Further research on the role of frailty in the evaluation and management of older adults with DO is warranted to best serve the needs of this population.

Perspectives From Authors and Editors in the Biomedical Disciplines on Predatory Journals: Survey Study.

BACKGROUND: Predatory journals fail to fulfill the tenets of biomedical publication: peer review, circulation, and access in perpetuity. Despite increasing attention in the lay and scientific press, no studies have directly assessed the perceptions of the authors or editors involved. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to understand the motivation of authors in sending their work to potentially predatory journals. Moreover, we aimed to understand the perspective of journal editors at journals cited as potentially predatory. METHODS: Potential online predatory journals were randomly selected among 350 publishers and their 2204 biomedical journals. Author and editor email information was valid for 2227 total potential participants. A survey for authors and editors was created in an iterative fashion and distributed. Surveys assessed attitudes and knowledge about predatory publishing. Narrative comments were invited. RESULTS: A total of 249 complete survey responses were analyzed. A total of 40% of editors (17/43) surveyed were not aware that they were listed as an editor for the particular journal in question. A total of 21.8% of authors (45/206) confirmed a lack of peer review. Whereas 77% (33/43) of all surveyed editors were at least somewhat familiar with predatory journals, only 33.0% of authors (68/206) were somewhat familiar with them (P<.001). Only 26.2% of authors (54/206) were aware of Beall's list of predatory journals versus 49% (21/43) of editors (P<.001). A total of 30.1% of authors (62/206) believed their publication was published in a predatory journal. After defining predatory publishing, 87.9% of authors (181/206) surveyed would not publish in the same journal in the future. CONCLUSIONS: Authors publishing in suspected predatory journals are alarmingly uninformed in terms of predatory journal quality and practices. Editors' increased familiarity with predatory publishing did little to prevent their unwitting listing as editors. Some suspected predatory journals did provide services akin to open access publication. Education, research mentorship, and a realignment of research incentives may decrease the impact of predatory publishing.

An electronic registry to improve adherence to active surveillance monitoring among men with prostate cancer at a safety-net hospital: protocol for a pilot study.

BACKGROUND: The evidence-based practice of active surveillance to monitor men with favorable-risk prostate cancer in lieu of initial definitive treatment is becoming more common. However, there are barriers to effective implementation, particularly in low-resource settings. Our goal is to assess the efficacy and feasibility of a health information technology registry for men on active surveillance at a safety-net hospital to ensure patients receive guideline-recommended care. METHODS: We developed an electronic registry for urology clinic staff to monitor men on active surveillance. The health information technology tool was developed using the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety model and iteratively tailored to the needs of the clinic by engaging providers in a co-design process. We will enroll all men at Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital and Trauma Center who choose active surveillance as a treatment strategy. The primary outcomes to be assessed during this non-randomized, pragmatic evaluation are number of days delayed beyond recommended date of follow-up testing, the proportion of men who are lost to follow-up, the cancer stage at active treatment, and the feasibility and acceptability of the clinic-wide intervention with clinic staff. Secondary outcomes include appointment adherence within 30 days of the scheduled date. DISCUSSION: Use of a customized electronic approach for monitoring men on active surveillance could improve patient outcomes. It may help reduce the number of men lost to follow-up and improve adherence to timely follow-up testing. Evaluating the adoption and efficacy of a customized registry in a safety-net setting may also demonstrate feasibility for implementation in diverse clinical contexts. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03553732, An Electronic Registry to Improve Adherence to Active Surveillance Monitoring at a Safety-net Hospital. Registered 11 June 2018.

Qualitative Analysis of the Content Found in Online Discussion Boards for Urethral Stricture Disease and Urethroplasty.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the patient experience and chief concerns with urethroplasty to improve physician understanding and patient education. Online discussion boards allow patients with urethral stricture disease (USD) to connect with other USD patients. It is unknown how men use these web resources and what information is available about urethroplasty. METHODS: Three online forums featuring urethroplasty were identified by Google search. Thematic analysis categorized the content of posts using manually applied codes, with inter-rater reliability and descriptive statistics generated by Dedoose (Los Angeles, CA). RESULTS: A total of 140 unique posters contributed 553 posts to the forums. Posts were categorized as information support (n = 651), issues posturethroplasty (n = 470), own experience preurethroplasty (n = 336), feelings towards other posters (n = 312), what to expect posturethroplasty (n = 265), feelings after urethroplasty (n = 228), and considerations before urethroplasty (n = 134). Experience navigating the healthcare system with USD (n = 141) and weak urine stream (n = 70) were the most frequent preurethroplasty complaints. Postoperative pain (n = 164) was the most frequent issue. Patients expressed more positivity (n = 126) and satisfaction (n = 120) than negativity (n = 33) with urethroplasty. CONCLUSION: Patients participated in online discussions to share experiences with USD and urethroplasty, receive emotional support, and find answers. Men were more often satisfied than not with their urethroplasty outcomes, with 88% of postoperative feelings coded as positive or satisfied compared to negative. This study provides physicians with insight into the experiences of patients and how to best educate them.

Altruistic donation to improve survey responses: a global randomized trial.

OBJECTIVE: Web-based platforms have revolutionized the ability for researchers to perform global survey research. Methods to incentivize participation have been singularly focused on European and North American participants with varied results. With an ever increasing proportion of biomedical research being performed in non-western countries, assessment of novel methods to improve global survey response is timely and necessary. To that end, we created a three-arm nested randomized control trial (RCT) within a prospective cohort study to assess the impact of incentives on survey responsiveness in a global audience of biomedical researchers. RESULTS: Email invitations were sent to authors and editors involved in online publishing totaling 2426 participants from 111 countries. Overall we observed a 13.0% response rate: 13.3% for the control group, 14.4% for a group entered to win a gift card, and 11.1% for a group whose participation lead to donation to charity (p = 0.17). Year of publication nor country impacted response rate. Within subgroups, editors were significantly less likely to respond to the survey as compared to authors (6.5% vs. 18.9%; p-value < 0.01). With power to detect a 4.8% difference among groups, we could not detect an impact of incentives on global survey response.

The landscape of urological retractions: the prevalence of reported research misconduct.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the landscape of retractions of literature and to determine the prevalence of research misconduct in the field of urology. METHODS: Three databases (PUBMED, Embase, Retraction Watch) were queried for all retracted studies on urological topics in both urological and non-urological journals from April 1999 to March 2018. Two reviewers screened the records and determined the final list of articles to be included in the analysis. RESULTS: A total of 138 articles met the inclusion criteria. Over 80% of retractions occurred after 2009. Retractions originated from 76 different journals (13 urological journals) and 28 countries. The most common reasons for retraction were plagiarism (28%), fake peer review (20%), error (20%), and falsification of data (13%). Misconduct accounted for two-thirds of the retractions (n = 93). A large watermark, indicating retraction of the article, was present in 75% of the manuscripts. Articles were cited a total of 4454 times, 38% of citations happened after retraction. The majority of retracted articles related to urological oncology (70%). The highest number of retractions for an individual author was five. Rates of retraction among popular urological journals since 2010 have increased but remain a small proportion of all publications: BJUI, 0.189%; World Journal of Urology, 0.132%; European Urology, 0.058%; Urology, 0.047%; and Journal of Urology, 0.024%. CONCLUSION: Retractions of urological literature, similarly to retractions of other biomedical literature, have been rising over the last decade. The majority of these retractions stem from research misconduct. Despite retractions, flawed articles continued to be cited.