Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33457280›Full record

ReviewTranslational andrology and urology2020

Radical cystectomy: a review of techniques, developments and controversies.

Khatereh Aminoltejari, Peter C Black

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Translational andrology and urology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

35 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Frailty and nutritional status predict postoperative complications in radical cystectomy patients.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2025
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Comparative analysis of apixaban vs. enoxaparin for thromboprophylaxis after radical cystectomy A single-center, observational, before-after study.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2025
    Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
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

2 authors.

Khatereh AminoltejariDepartment of Urologic Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Peter C BlackDepartment of Urologic Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Radical cystectomy (RC) with urinary diversion is considered the standard treatment for muscle invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). As one of the most challenging surgical techniques performed by urologists, RC was described many decades ago, and yet patient morbidity rates have remained stagnant over the years. This review outlines the most recent indications and techniques for RC and analyses the current landscape of complications after cystectomy. There is significant room for improvement with respect to both oncologic and functional outcomes after RC. Future efforts will need to focus on unifying reporting methodology, optimal patient selection criteria, enhanced surgical techniques and peri-operative care pathways, and technological advances to improve patient outcomes.

Indexed as

Complicationspelvic lymph node dissection (PLND)radical cystectomy (RC)urothelial carcinoma of bladder

Identifiers

PMID33457280
PMCPMC7807330

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.