19 / 70
T
ruzzi
JC
et
al
.
676
R
ev
A
ssoc
M
ed
B
ras
2017; 63(8):664-680
Data analysis and expression
The results are expressed as absolute risk reduction or
increase with their respective 95% confidence intervals.
The number needed to treat (NNT) or number needed to
harm (NNH) will be calculated.
Description of evidence
The available evidence will follow some principles to
be displayed:
•
•
It will be shown based on benefit or harm outcomes.
•
•
It will be presented according to study design (random-
ized controlled trial, clinical trial, before-and-after trial).
•
•
It will include the following components: number of
patients, type of comparison, magnitude (NNT), and
precision (95CI).
Annex II
P
reoperative
period
Clinical question
How should the preoperative evaluation be performed in
patients who will undergo artificial urinary sphincter
implantation?
Structured question (PICO)
•
•
P
atient – Patients with moderate to severe urinary
incontinence.
•
•
I
ntervention – Artificial urinary sphincter.
•
•
C
omparison – Taking or not taking certain preopera-
tive conducts.
•
•
O
utcome – Benefit or harm in the postoperative period.
Data extraction
The results obtained from the studies included were related
to the preoperative evaluation used and the number of pa-
tients who obtained benefits or harm from this measure.
Data analysis and expression
Preoperative care most frequently used in the included
studies as well as possible benefits or harm related to this
conduct were discussed.
Description of evidence
The available evidence will follow some principles to
be displayed:
•
•
It will be shown based on benefit or harm outcomes.
•
•
It will be presented according to study design (random-
ized controlled trial, clinical trial, before-and-after trial).
Annex III
P
erineal
versus
scrotal
approach
Clinical question
What should be the surgical approach to artificial urinary
sphincter implantation?
Structured question (PICO)
•
•
Patient – Patients with urinary incontinence due to
sphincter deficiency.
•
•
Intervention – Implantation of artificial urinary sphinc-
ter via the scrotal approach.
•
•
Comparison – Perineal implantation approach.
•
•
Outcome – Control of incontinence and complications.
Data extraction
The results obtained from the included studies referred
to the number of patients who obtained benefits or harm
from one of the two approaches.
Data analysis and expression
The results are expressed as absolute risk reduction or
increase with their respective 95% confidence intervals.
The number needed to treat (NNT) or number needed to
harm (NNH) will be calculated.
Description of evidence
The available evidence will follow some principles to
be displayed:
•
•
It will be shown based on benefit or harm outcomes.
•
•
It will be presented according to study design (random-
ized controlled trial, clinical trial, before-and-after trial).
•
•
It will include the following components: number of
patients, type of comparison, magnitude (NNT), and
precision (95CI).
Annex IV
T
ranscorporal
approach
Clinical question
What is the best approach for cuff placement in artificial
urinary sphincter implant surgery?
Structured question (PICO)
•
•
P
atient – Patients with moderate to severe urinary
incontinence.
•
•
I
ntervention – Cuff implantation using a transcorpo-
ral approach.