Rieken et al Databases searched: Medline. Quality: Low 2010 Explicit review questions: No Switzerland Time period of search: Approx. 2005-2009 (the article indicates Explicit & appropriate eligibility criteria: No that data were based on a MEDLINE search conducted “over Explicit & comprehensive search strategy: No the past 4 years”; the article was received for publication on July Quality of included studies appraised: No 28, 2009.) Methods of study appraisal reproducible: No. Heterogeneity between studies assessed: N/A. Comparators: HoLEP vs. TURP and OP. Summary of main results clear and appropriate: Yes Outcomes: safety, effectiveness. (NB: Levels of evidence were assessed, however, the quality of evidence was NOT assessed.) Tan et al Databases searched: Medline, Embase and The Cochrane Quality: Fair Library. 2007 Explicit review questions: Yes China Explicit & appropriate eligibility criteria: Yes Time period of search: 1990–2007. Explicit & comprehensive search strategy: No Quality of included studies appraised: Yes Comparators: HoLEP versus TURP Methods of study appraisal reproducible: Yes. Heterogeneity between studies assessed: Yes Outcomes: Safety, effectiveness, cost-effectiveness Summary of main results clear and appropriate: No (NB: Has no PICO or actual explicit review questions, but does provide very inclusion criteria (page 1202))
Rieken et al 2010 Switzerland Databases searched: Medline. Time period of search: Approx. 2005-2009 (the article indicates that data were based on a MEDLINE search conducted “over the past 4 years”; the article was received for publication on July 28, 2009.) Comparators: HoLEP vs. TURP and OP. Outcomes: safety, effectiveness. Quality: Low Explicit review questions: No Explicit & appropriate eligibility criteria: No Explicit & comprehensive search strategy: No Quality of included studies appraised: No Methods of study appraisal reproducible: No. Heterogeneity between studies assessed: N/A. Summary of main results clear and appropriate: Yes (NB: Levels of evidence were assessed, however, the quality of evidence was NOT assessed.) Tan et al 2007 China Databases searched: Medline, Embase and The Cochrane Library. Time period of search: 1990–2007. Comparators: HoLEP versus TURP Outcomes: Safety, effectiveness, cost-effectiveness Quality: Fair Explicit review questions: Yes Explicit & appropriate eligibility criteria: Yes Explicit & comprehensive search strategy: No Quality of included studies appraised: Yes Methods of study appraisal reproducible: Yes. Heterogeneity between studies assessed: Yes Summary of main results clear and appropriate: No (NB: Has no PICO or actual explicit review questions, but does provide very inclusion criteria (page 1202))
1149-Assessment-Report-Final-accessible.docx