ArticleAsian journal of urology2020
Survival after radical cystectomy for bladder cancer: Multicenter comparison between minimally invasive and open approaches.
Article in Asian journal of urology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy evaluation of urethral dragging-and-adhesion anastomosis in ileal orthotopic neobladder reconstruction following laparoscopic radical cystectomy: a dual-center retrospective study.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Robot-Assisted Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Radical Cystectomy in a Multicenter Cohort Study: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis.Annals of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- Using machine learning for predicting cancer-specific mortality in bladder cancer patients undergoing radical cystectomy: a SEER-based study.BMC cancer · 2025Article
- Comparison of Laparoscopic and Open Radical Cystectomy for Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Perioperative mortality for radical cystectomy in the modern Era: experience from a tertiary referral center.International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of UrologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
28 authors at 18 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate oncological outcomes in patients with bladder cancer who underwent minimally invasive radical cystectomy (MIRC) or open radical cystectomy (ORC).
methodsWe identified patients with bladder cancer who underwent radical cystectomy (RC) in 13 centers of the Chinese Bladder Cancer Consortium (CBCC). Perioperative outcomes were compared between MIRC and ORC. The influence of surgical approaches on overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) in the entire study group and subgroups classified according to pathologic stage or lymph node (LN) status was assessed with the log-rank test. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard models were used to evaluate the association among OS, CSS and risk factors of interest.
resultsOf 2 098 patients who underwent RC, 1 243 patients underwent MIRC (1 087 laparoscopic RC and 156 robotic-assisted RC, respectively), while 855 patients underwent ORC. No significant differences were noted in positive surgical margin rate and 90-day postoperative mortality rate. MIRC was associated with less estimated blood loss, more LN yield, higher rate of neobladder diversion, longer operative time, and longer length of hospital stay. There was no significant difference in OS and CSS according to surgical approaches (
conclusionsOur study showed that MIRC was comparable to conventional ORC in terms of OS and CSS.
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.