Abstract
Purpose
Materials and Methods
Results
Figures and Tables
![]() | Fig. 1Study protocol. FU, follow-up; IPSS, International Prostate Symptom Score; FRRU, uroflowmetry. |
Table 1
Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Table 2
Subject demographics and characteristics

Values are presented as mean±standard deviation.
BMI, body mass index; IPSS, International Prostate Symptom Score; QoL, quality of life; EQ VAS, EuroQol visual analogue scale; Qmax, maximal flow rate; PVR, postvoid residuals; PSA, prostate-specific antigen.
a:Control arm: general weight reduction advice; active arm: comprehensive weight reduction program. b:Irritative score: sum of score of IPSS questions 2, 4, and 7. c:p-value signifies the difference between the control arm and the active arm. d:p-value signifies the difference between different BMI groups.
Table 3
Difference between pre- and postintervention parameters

Values are presented as mean±standard deviation.
BMI, body mass index; IPSS, International Prostate Symptom Score; QoL, quality of life; EQ VAS, EuroQol visual analogue scale; Qmax, maximal flow rate; PVR, postvoid residuals; TRUS, transrectal ultrasound; PSA, prostate-specific antigen.
a:Control arm: general weight reduction advice; active arm: comprehensive weight reduction program. b:Irritative score: sum of score of IPSS questions 2, 4, and 7.
Table 4
Correlation between different factors and BMI reduction

Values are presented as mean±standard deviation.
Patients were categorized into 4 quartiles according to the percentage of weight reduction, with group 1 having the least weight reduction and group 4 having the most weight reduction.
IPSS, International Prostate Symptom Score; QoL, quality of life; EQ VAS, EuroQol visual analogue scale; Qmax, maximal flow rate; PVR, postvoid residuals; PSA, prostate-specific antigen.
a:Irritative score: sum of score of IPSS questions 2, 4, and 7.