ReviewIranian journal of public health2019
Long-Term Clinical Outcomes of Radical Prostatectomy versus Watchful Waiting in Localized Prostate Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Iranian journal of public health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Machine learning-based prognostic model integrating preoperative HALP score and lactate dehydrogenase for predicting postoperative recurrence of prostate cancer.World journal of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- Biochemical relapse free survival rate in patients with prostate cancer treated with external radiotherapy: outcomes obtained at the CMN Siglo XXI Hospital de Oncología, CMN 20 de Noviembre and Hospital General de México of the México City.Reports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation OncologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe present study aimed to compare the long-term clinical and functional outcomes of patients with clinically localized prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy compared to the watchful waiting.
methodsPubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and reference lists of relevant marker studies were scrutinized from inception to Jan 2018. Two reviewers conducted data abstraction and quality assessment of included trials independently. Quality of included studies were assessed by using Cochrane checklist. Inverse-variance and Mantel-Haenszel estimates under random effects model were used to pool results as relative risks with 95% confidence interval. Heterogeneity was assessed by using I
resultsThree randomized controlled trials with 1568 participants were included. Compared to watchful waiting, radical prostatectomy had no significant effect on all-cause mortality at 12-year follow-up. However, radical prostatectomy had significant effect on reducing prostate-cause mortality at 12-year follow-up. We found significant lower prostate-cause mortality in patients with PSA>10 and GS≥7 scores who had undergone radical prostatectomy compared with patients in watchful waiting group. In addition, younger patients undergoing surgery developed lower distant metastases rate compared to another approach. Watchful waiting had a significant effect on erectile and urinary incontinence during 2 years.
conclusionThere was no significant difference between radical prostatectomy and watchful waiting on all-cause mortality. However, the radical prostatectomy was associated with statistically lower prostate-cause mortality and metastases rates. Compared with older men, younger men experienced better clinical outcomes. Moreover, watchful waiting had better effect on reducing erectile dysfunction and urinary incontinence among patients during 2 years compared to radical prostatectomy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31110967PMC6500545W2946157958What 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.