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.

Randomisation of men to a RCT comparing partial prostate ablation and radical prostatectomy is feasible.

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

Freddie C Hamdy 1,*, Daisy Elliott 2, Steffi le Conte 1, Lucy C Davies 3, Richéal M Burns 3, Claire Thomson 1, Richard Gray 3, Jane Wolstenholme 3, Jenny L Donovan 2,4, Ray Fitzpatrick 3, Clare Verrill 1, Fergus Gleeson 5, Surjeet Singh 1, Derek Rosario 6, James W F Catto 5, Simon Brewster 7, Tim Dudderidge 8, Richard Hindley 9, Amr Emara 9, Prasanna Sooriakumaran 10, Hashim U Ahmed 11, Tom A Leslie 1

1 Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
2 Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
3 Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
4 National Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care West at University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK
5 Department of Oncology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
6 Department of Oncology and Metabolism, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
7 Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK
8 University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK
9 Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Basingstoke, UK
10 University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
11 Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK
* Corresponding author Email: freddie.hamdy@nds.ox.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