Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31145297›Full record

SynthesisMedicine2019

Robot-assisted and laparoscopic vs open radical prostatectomy in clinically localized prostate cancer: perioperative, functional, and oncological outcomes: A Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Lan Cao, Zhenyu Yang, Lin Qi, Minfeng Chen

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 100 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
100citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
13.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

100 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 168 citations in OpenAlex.

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

40 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Lan CaoXiangya School of Medicine.
Zhenyu YangDepartment of Urology, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China.
Lin QiDepartment of Urology, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China.
Minfeng ChenDepartment of Urology, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China.
Central South University · CNXiangya Hospital Central South University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo perform a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the perioperative, functional, and oncological outcomes and cost of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP), or laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) comparing with open radical prostatectomy (ORP) in men with clinically localized prostate cancer through all prospective comparative studies.

methodsA comprehensive literature search was performed in August 2018 using the Pubmed, Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective studies including patients with clinically localized prostate cancer were eligible for study inclusion. Cumulative analysis was conducted using Review Manager v. 5.3 software.

resultsTwo RCTs and 9 prospective studies were included in this systematic review. There were no significant differences between RARP/LRP and ORP in overall complication rate, major complication rate, overall positive surgical margin (PSM) rate, ≤pT2 tumor PSM rate, ≥pT3 tumor PSM rate. Moreover, RARP/LRP and ORP showed similarity in biochemical recurrence (BCR) rate at 3, 12, 24 months postoperatively. Urinary continence and erectile function at 12 months postoperatively between RARP and ORP are also comparable. RARP/LRP were associated with significantly lower estimated blood loss [mean difference (MD) -749.67, 95% CI -1038.52 to -460.82, P = .001], lower transfusion rate (OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.30, P < .001) and less hospitalization duration (MD -1.18, 95% CI -2.18 to -0.19, P = .02). And RARP/LRP required more operative time (MD 50.02, 95% CI 6.50 to 93.55, P = .02) and cost.

conclusionRARP/LRP is associated with lower blood loss, transfusion rate and less hospitalization duration. The available data were insufficient to prove the superiority of any surgical approach in terms of postoperative complications, functional and oncologic outcomes.

Indexed as

AdultAgedHumansLaparoscopyMaleMargins of ExcisionMiddle AgedOperative TimePostoperative ComplicationsProstatectomyProstatic NeoplasmsRobotic Surgical ProceduresTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID31145297
PMCPMC6709105
OpenAlexW2948504566

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.