A systematic scoping review will be conducted to map the evidence on
A systematic scoping review will be conducted to map the evidence on
- the prevalence of NSSE after early treatment PCa, and
- summarise literature on the use of questionnaires in the assessment of NSSE after early treatment for PCa.
The scoping review will follow the five steps described by (10) that included the following;
- Identifying the research question
- Identifying relevant studies
- Study selection
- Charting the data
- Collating, summarizing and reporting on the data
Quality assessment of each of the included primary studies will be done as directed by (11)
Identifying the research question
This review aims to identify current academic literature on the NSSE after men have undergone early treatment for PCa.
The research questions are as follows:
- What is the prevalence of NSSE after early treatment for PCa?
- Which questionnaires are being used to assess NSSE after early treatment for PCa?
Eligibility criteria
The Population Concept Context (PCC) framework will be used to determine the eligibility of the research question as illustrated in Table 1
Table 1
Criteria | Determinants |
Population | Men who received surgical and non-surgical treatment following early PCa diagnosis |
Concept | Neglected sexual side effects (NSSE) |
Context | Prevalence of NSSE Questionnaire use to assess NSSE |
Identifying relevant studies
This scoping review will include original research of any study design that has been published in peer-reviewed papers. To identify the studies an electronic search will be conducted using the Pubmed, Science Direct and Google Scholar databases. We will also include relevant studies found in citations and reference lists of included articles. The search will include publications available in English and published between January 2009 and December 2019.
Boolean terms (AND, OR) and Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) will be used as indicated in Table 2. The search results will be captured on an Excel spreadsheet where the duplicates will be removed. The selected studies will be screened against the eligibility criteria. The study search strategy was piloted to determine the appropriateness and feasibility of conducting this study, and the results are represented in Table 2.
Table 2
Pilot database search results
Keyword search | Date of search | Search Engine used | No. of publications retrieved |
(Orgas* OR Penil* OR Climacturia (MeSH Terms) OR Dysorgasmia (MeSH Terms) OR anejaculation (MeSH Terms) OR Peyronie OR neglected AND [prostate cancer (MeSH Terms) OR Prostatectomy (MeSH Terms) ] | 1 September 2019 | Pubmed | 152 |
Study selection
A specific set of eligibility criteria was developed to ensure that relevant studies contain the appropriate results according to our research question.
The results of all three databases will be combined into one Excel spreadsheet after applying the search parameters. The eligibility criteria were developed to ensure that selected studies contain relevant information to answer the review questions.
The inclusion criteria
Only primary studies that present evidence on:
- The prevalence of NSSE after 3early stage PCa treatment
- The use of questionnaires to assess NSSE after early stage PCa treatment
- Original studies available in English and published between 1 Jan 2009-31 December 2019.
The exclusion criteria
The coping review will exclude:
- Review articles
- Non-peer reviewed articles (e.g. books, magazines, policy briefs etc.
- Commentaries, editorials, programme evaluations and letters.
- Literature on sexual dysfunction not relating to the prevalence and questionnaire use after early PCa treatment.
- Studies outside the period of interest and studies not available in English.
The primary investigator will conduct a comprehensive search and screening of the study titles from the above-mentioned databases. All the relevant studies with appropriate titles will be extracted and entered into an Excel spreadsheet for processing. All duplicates will be removed before the titles are screened. The abstracts of the eligible studies will be reviewed by two reviewers. This will be followed by full text screening by both reviewers of the qualifying articles to apply the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Any discrepancies in reviewers’ results during the abstract and /or full text screening stage will be resolved by discussion until resolved. If needed, a third reviewer will be used to settle discrepancies. The screening result will be reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) chart (12).
Charting the data
The information will be extracted and organized using a data charting form. Data will be processed so that the relevant information can be summarized to answer the research questions. The data charting tool as illustrated in Table 3 will be used by a second reviewer to validate all the information.
Table 3 Data charting form included information on:
Author, date and reference
Aims and research questions
Geographical setting
Study Population
Study design
Number of participants
Period post PCa investigated
Prevalence of NSSE
Reported use of Questionnaire
Quality of the study
Quality Appraisal
An electronic version of the Mixed Method Appraisal Tool (MMAT) (13) will be adapted to assess the quality of the included studies. The study designs included in this scoping review will include qualitative, quantitative descriptive and mixed methods studies. The specific criteria to determine the appropriateness of each included study is outlined in Appendix 1.
Two reviewers will assign a score to assess each article that will assess the appropriateness of the study aims and its relevance for inclusion on the review. The overall quality for each included study will be calculated according to the following MMAT guidelines (score = number of criteria met/total score in each domain). 1 point will be given for each question and a total score out of 5 will be calculated. This will be represented as a percentage which correlates to the quality of the included studies. (Appendix 1)
The results will use the following descriptors.
- Very poor quality (20%) where minimal criteria is met
- Poor quality (40%) where less than half the criteria is not met
- Fair quality (60%) where just more than half the criteria is met
- Good quality (80%) where most of the criteria is met
- Excellent quality (100%) all criteria are met
The overall quality of a combination of components cannot be more than its weakest component when it comes to mixed methods studies, making the overall score equal to the lowest scoring component (13).
Collating, summarizing and reporting on the data
The findings of this scoping review will be analysed using a content analysis approach of the themes emerging from the extracted data. The themes will be collated to answer each research question. The review team will discuss findings, resolve issues and finalise findings. The review team will analyse the implications of the study findings in how they relate to the study aims and further research in the field.