Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29332100›Full record

SynthesisMedical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research2018

Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy Is More Beneficial for Prostate Cancer Patients: A System Review and Meta-Analysis.

Yuefeng Du, Qingzhi Long, Bin Guan, Lijun Mu, Juanhua Tian, Yumei Jiang, Xiaojing Bai, Dapeng Wu

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 65 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
65citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
7.5field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

65 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 132 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

5 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Yuefeng DuDepartment of Urology, First Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, Shaanxi, China (mainland).
Qingzhi LongDepartment of Urology, Department of Urology, Xi'an, Shaanxi, China (mainland).
Bin GuanDepartment of Urology, Department of Urology, Xi'an, Shaanxi, China (mainland).
Lijun MuDepartment of Urology, First Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, Shaanxi, China (mainland).
Juanhua TianDepartment of Urology, First Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, Shaanxi, China (mainland).
Yumei JiangDepartment of Urology, First Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, Shaanxi, China (mainland).
Xiaojing BaiDepartment of Urology, First Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, Shaanxi, China (mainland).
Dapeng WuDepartment of Urology, First Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, Shaanxi, China (mainland).
First Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) is increasingly used worldwide, but comparisons of perioperative, functional, and oncologic outcomes among RARP, laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP), and open radical prostatectomy (ORP) remain inconsistent. MATERIAL AND METHODS Systematic literature searches were conducted using EMBASE, PubMed, the Cochrane Library, CNKI, and Science Direct/Elsevier up to April 2017. A meta-analysis was conducted using Review Manager and Stata software. RESULTS We included 33 studies. Meta-analysis revealed that blood loss, transfusion rate, and positive surgical margin (PSM) rate were significantly lower following RARP compared with LRP (SMD (95% confidence interval [CI]) 0.31 [0.01, 0.61]; combined ORs (95% CI) 5.32 [1.29, 21.98]; 1.27 [1.10, 1.46]) and ORP (SMD (95% CI) 0.75 [0.30, 1.21]; and combined ORs (95% CI) 3.44 [1.21, 9.79]); positive surgical margin (PSM) rates were significantly lower following RARP compared with LRP (combined ORs (95% CI) 1.27 [1.10, 1.46]), but not ORP. Operation time was also shorter for RARP than for LRP. The rates of nerve-sparing, recovery of complete urinary continence, and recovery of erectile function were significantly higher following RARP compared with LRP (combined ORs (95% CI) 0.55 [0.31, 0.95]; 0.66 [0.55, 0.78]; 0.46 [0.30, 0.71]) and ORP (combined ORs (95% CI) 0.36 [0.21, 0.63]; 0.33 [0.15, 0.74]; 0.65 [0.37, 1.14]). CONCLUSIONS This meta-analysis demonstrates that RARP results in better overall outcomes than LRP and ORP in terms of blood loss, transfusion rate, nerve sparing, urinary continence and erectile dysfunction recovery, and suggests that RARP offers better results than LRP and ORP in treatment of prostate cancer. However, studies with larger sample sizes and long-term results are needed.

Indexed as

ProstatectomyRobotic Surgical ProceduresAgedBlood Loss, SurgicalBlood TransfusionErectile DysfunctionHumansLaparoscopyMaleMargins of ExcisionMiddle AgedOperative TimeProstatic NeoplasmsPublication BiasUrinary Incontinence

Identifiers

PMID29332100
PMCPMC5776881
OpenAlexW2784290558

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.