ReviewCurrent urology reports2019
Radical Cystectomy in Female Patients - Improving Outcomes.
Review in Current urology reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Optimizing local control in the surgical management of bladder cancer.Nature reviews. Urology · 2026Review
- Immune checkpoint inhibitors in bladder cancer: from mechanistic insights to emerging combination frontlines.Clinical and experimental medicine · 2026Review
- Incidence and risk factors for postoperative vaginal events following radical cystectomy for bladder cancer: a nationwide population-based study.BJU international · 2025Observational
- Utilizing vaginal natural orifice to facilitate bowel manipulation during totally intracorporeal ileal conduit construction: a retrospective cohort study.Annals of medicine · 2025Article
- Sparing urethra in women at the time of cystectomy: retrospective comparison of cystectomies with and without urethrectomy.Translational andrology and urology · 2025Article
- Mini-Review: Current Bladder Cancer Treatment-The Need for Improvement.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
- Practice Patterns Regarding Female Reproductive Organ-Sparing and Nerve-Sparing Radical Cystectomy Among Urologic Oncologists in the United States.Clinical genitourinary cancer · 2023Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewTo review the methods of improving surgical, oncological, and functional outcomes in women with bladder cancer treated with radical cystectomy. RECENT
findingsΟrthotopic urinary diversion (ONB) is a safe option for well-selected women as it combines high rates of daytime and nighttime continence with exceptional oncologic outcomes. It is considered safe even for patients with limited lymph node disease and trigone involvement, as long as a preoperative biopsy of the bladder neck or an intraoperative frozen section analysis of distal urethral margin rules out malignant disease. Nerve-sparing techniques have shown promising results. For well-selected patients with early invasive disease, sparing of internal genitalia has proven to be oncologically safe. Yet, generally accepted and evidence-based oncological and functional follow-up schemes for women after radical cystectomy are still lacking. Properly designed prospective studies are needed with adequate number of participants in order to safely conclude about a broader use of pelvic organ-sparing cystectomy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31781877What 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.