Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33457287›Full record

ReviewTranslational andrology and urology2020

Open partial nephrectomy: current review.

Ellen O'Connor, Brennan Timm, Nathan Lawrentschuk, Joseph Ischia

Open access · diamondAbstract 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 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Analysis of 87 Nephrectomies in a Tertiary Healthcare Center in Nigeria.Nigerian medical journal : journal of the Nigeria Medical Association
    Article
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 3 institutions in 1 country.

Ellen O'ConnorDepartment of Surgery, University of Melbourne, Austin Health, Heidelberg, Australia.
Brennan TimmDepartment of Surgery, University of Melbourne, Austin Health, Heidelberg, Australia.
Nathan LawrentschukDepartment of Surgical Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia.
Joseph IschiaDepartment of Surgery, University of Melbourne, Austin Health, Heidelberg, Australia.
University of Melbourne · AUAustin Health · AUPeter MacCallum Cancer Centre · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Partial nephrectomy (PN) is increasingly considered the gold standard treatment for localized renal cell carcinomas (RCCs) where technically feasible. The advantage of nephron-sparing surgery lies in preservation of parenchyma and hence renal function. However, this advantage is counterbalanced with increased surgical risk. In recent years with the popularization of minimally invasive partial nephrectomy (laparoscopic and robotic), the contemporary role of open PN (OPN) has changed. OPN has several advantages, particularly in complex patients such as those with a solitary kidney, multi-focal tumors, and significant surgical history, as well as providing improved application of renoprotective measures. As such, it is a technique that remains relevant in current urology practice. In this article we discuss the evidence, indications, operative considerations and surgical technique, along with the role of OPN in contemporary nephron-sparing surgery.

Indexed as

complicationsminimally invasive surgical proceduresnephronorgan preservationRenal neoplasmurological surgical procedures

Identifiers

PMID33457287
PMCPMC7807322
OpenAlexW3035609309

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.