Journals Library

An error occurred retrieving publication content to display, please try again.

Page not found (404)

Sorry - the page you requested could not be found.

Please choose a page from the navigation or try a website search above to find the information you need.

The two procedures were similar in terms of urinary symptom scores over 24 months.

{{author}}{{author}}{{($index > metadata.AuthorsAndEtalArray.length-1) ? ',' : '.'}}

Robert Pickard 1,, Beatriz Goulao 2, Sonya Carnell 3, Jing Shen 4, Graeme MacLennan 5, John Norrie 6, Matt Breckons 4, Luke Vale 4,*, Paul Whybrow 7, Tim Rapley 8, Rebecca Forbes 3, Stephanie Currer 3, Mark Forrest 5, Jennifer Wilkinson 3, Elaine McColl 4, Daniela Andrich 9, Stewart Barclay 10, Jonathan Cook 11, Anthony Mundy 9, James N’Dow 12, Stephen Payne 13, Nick Watkin 14

1 Institute of Cellular Medicine, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
2 Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
3 Newcastle Clinical Trials Unit, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
4 Institute of Health & Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
5 Centre for Healthcare and Randomised Trials, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
6 Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
7 Hull York Medical School, Hull, UK
8 Social Work, Education & Community Wellbeing, University of Northumbria, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
9 University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
10 Patient representative, ,
11 Oxford Clinical Trials Research Unit, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
12 Academic Urology Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
13 Central Manchester Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
14 St George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
* Corresponding author Email: luke.vale@newcastle.ac.uk

Funding: {{metadata.Funding}}

{{metadata.Journal}} Volume: {{metadata.Volume}}, Issue: {{metadata.Issue}}, Published in {{metadata.PublicationDate | date:'MMMM yyyy'}}

https://doi.org/{{metadata.DOI}}

Citation:{{author}}{{ (($index < metadata.AuthorsArray.length-1) && ($index <=6)) ? ', ' : '' }}{{(metadata.AuthorsArray.length <= 6) ? '.' : '' }} {{(metadata.AuthorsArray.length > 6) ? 'et al. ' : ''}}. {{metadata.JournalShortName}} {{metadata.PublicationDate | date:'yyyy'}};{{metadata.Volume}}({{metadata.Issue}})

Crossmark status check

Report Content

The full text of this issue is available as a PDF document from the Toolkit section on this page.

The full text of this issue is available as a PDF document from the Toolkit section on this page.

If you would like to receive a notification when this project publishes in the NIHR Journals Library, please submit your email address below.

Responses to this report

No responses have been published.

 

If you would like to submit a response to this publication, please do so using the form below:

Comments submitted to the NIHR Journals Library are electronic letters to the editor. They enable our readers to debate issues raised in research reports published in the Journals Library. We aim to post within 14 working days all responses that contribute substantially to the topic investigated, as determined by the Editors.  Non-relevant comments will be deleted.

Your name and affiliations will be published with your comment.

Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. The Editors may add, remove, or edit comments at their absolute discretion.

By submitting your response, you are stating that you agree to the terms & conditions

An error has occurred in processing the XML document