SynthesisWorld journal of surgical oncology2020
Safety and efficacy of en bloc transurethral resection versus conventional transurethral resection for primary nonmuscle-invasive bladder cancer: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in World journal of surgical oncology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 40 citations in OpenAlex.
- En bloc versus conventional transurethral resection for non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer: an expanded and updated systematic review and meta-analysis reconciling contemporary evidence on oncological, pathological, and safety outcomes.World journal of surgical oncology · 2026Pooled it
- Optimal energy source selection strategies for en bloc resection in non-muscle invasive bladder cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.World journal of urology · 2025Pooled it
- Efficiency of transurethral en-bloc resection vs. conventional transurethral resection for non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer: An umbrella review.Cancer medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Pathological assessment of morcellated tissue after ERBT: insights from a two-round Delphi survey.World journal of urology · 2026Article
- Recent Advances and Emerging Innovations in Transurethral Resection of Bladder Tumor (TURBT) for Non-Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer: A Comprehensive Review of Current Literature.Research and reports in urology · 2025Review
- Strategies to Improve Clinical Outcomes and Patient Experience Undergoing Transurethral Resection of Bladder Tumor.Current urology reports · 2024Review
- A 10-year renaissance of en bloc resection of bladder tumors (ERBT): Are we approaching the peak or is it back to the trough?World journal of urology · 2023Review
- En Bloc Resection Versus Conventional TURBT for T1HG Bladder Cancer: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.Annals of surgical oncology · 2023Article
- Down-regulation and clinical significance of Sorbin and SH3 domain-containing protein 1 in bladder cancer tissues.IET systems biology · 2023Article
- Precise diagnosis and treatment of non-muscle invasive bladder cancer - A clinical perspective.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Review
- The Safety and Efficacy of Vela Laser En-Bloc Endoscopic Resection versus Conventional Transurethral Resection of Bladder Tumor-A Single Center Experience.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Non-Muscular Invasive Bladder Cancer: Re-envisioning Therapeutic Journey from Traditional to Regenerative Interventions.Aging and disease · 2021Review
- Long-term Follow-up After En Bloc Transurethral Resection of Non-muscle-invasive Bladder Cancer: Results from a Single-center Experience.European urology open science · 2021Article
- Cold Atmospheric Plasma, a Novel Approach against Bladder Cancer, with Higher Sensitivity for the High-Grade Cell Line.Biology · 2021Article
- Review
- Preliminary study on the application of en bloc resection combined with near-infrared molecular imaging technique in the diagnosis and treatment of bladder cancer.World journal of urology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe purpose of this meta-analysis is to compare the safety and efficacy of en bloc transurethral resection of bladder tumor (EBRT) versus conventional transurethral resection of bladder tumor (CTURBT).
methodsWe performed a meta-analysis of relevant articles through November 2019 using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register to compare the safety and efficacy of EBRT versus CTURBT. The main endpoint included the operation time (OT), hospitalization time (HT), catheterization time (AT), perioperative period complications, bladder detrusor muscle found in the specimen, the residual tumor on the base, the ratio of the same site recurrence, and 12/24/36-month recurrence rate. Cochrane Collaboration's Revman software, version 5.3, was used for statistical analysis.
resultsA total of 19 studies with 2651 patients were included, 1369 underwent EBRT and 1282 underwent CTURBT. Patients treated with EBRT had a significantly lower AT, HT, obturator nerve reflex, bladder perforation, bladder irritation, postoperative complications, and 24-month recurrence rate than those who underwent CTURBT. While no significant difference was found in terms of OT, the ratio of bladder detrusor muscle found in the specimen, the residual tumor on the base, 12-month recurrence rate, 36-month recurrence rate, and the ratio of the same site recurrence. In mitomycin subgroup, EBRT was superior to CTURBT in terms of 12/24-month recurrence rate. Similarly, in the prospective subgroup and retrospective subgroup, EBRT had a lower 24-month recurrence rate than CTURBT. However, no significant difference was found in the low, intermediate, and high-risk group in the light of 12-36-month recurrence rate.
conclusionsBased on the included 19 articles, EBRT had a significantly lower AT, HT, intraoperative and postoperative complications, and 24-month recurrence rate than those treated with CTURBT. Well-designed randomized controlled trials were needed to reevaluate these outcomes.
trial registrationThis meta-analysis was reported in agreement with the PRISMA statement and was registered on PROSPERO 2019 CRD42019121673.
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.