ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2014
Current status of pelvic lymph node dissection in prostate cancer.
Article in Journal of robotic surgery, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pelvic lymph node management in prostate cancer: a narrative review.Prostate international · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) is presently considered the gold standard for the detection of lymph node invasion in prostate cancer (PCa) patients. Controversy exists over the adequate extent of PLND for patients at different stages of PCa and over the therapeutic value of the procedure. The most recent consensus advocates extended PLND (ePLND) in a patient with Gleason score ≥7 and serum prostate-specific antigen >10 ng/ml who is undergoing radical prostatectomy. Critics claim more aggressive dissection is associated with an increase in complications, hospitalization time, and cost. The present review examines the debate of limited versus ePLND, and discusses the potential value of the latter for patients with PCa. Furthermore, it examines the utility of robotic-assisted surgery in performing PLNDs with both comparable oncological outcomes and comparable complication rates. The literature has reported promising results that support both diagnostic and therapeutic benefits of ePLND. However, prospective, multi-center, long-term studies are necessary to alleviate criticism of the increased risk of complications and costs of performing PLND.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.