4.4 Article

Diagnosing and treating chronic prostatitis: Do urologists use the four-glass test?

期刊

UROLOGY
卷 55, 期 3, 页码 403-407

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0090-4295(99)00536-1

关键词

-

资金

  1. AHRQ HHS [HS08397] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIDDK NIH HHS [DK53736] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives. To examine the diagnosis and treatment of chronic prostatitis, we conducted a national mail survey of practicing urologists in 1998. Methods. Probability samples were drawn from the American Medical Association Registry of Physicians. Results. Five hundred four urologists responded (response rate 64%). Urologists reported seeing a median of 30 patients (interquartile range 11 to 60) newly diagnosed with chronic prostatitis in the previous 12 months. Eighty percent of urologists responded that they rarely (47%) or never (33%) performed the Meares-Stamey four-glass diagnostic test. Only 4% answered almost always. Forty percent of urologists responded that they treat all their patients with antibiotics and 42% more responded that they treat more than half with antibiotics. Physicians who routinely performed the four-glass test did not differ in antibiotic use from those who used the test less often; however, they were more likely to use treatment other than antibiotics. For example, alpha-blockers were used in one half or more of the patients by only 35% of physicians who never do the four-glass test compared with 42% who rarely do the test and 57% who do the test more often (P = 0.002). Results were similar for treatment with natural remedies. Conclusions. Urologists frequently diagnose chronic prostatitis but rarely perform the four-glass diagnostic test. Use of the four-glass test does not appear to affect urologists' antibiotic treatment patterns. Although bacterial prostatitis is thought to be rare, antibiotic use in the population of men with prostatitis is not. The four-glass test and empiric antibiotics are practices in the diagnosis and treatment of prostatitis that deserve scrutiny. (C) 2000, Elsevier Science Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据