ArticleBMJ open2021
Functional, oncological outcomes and safety of nephron-sparing surgery versus radical nephrectomy in patients with localised renal cell carcinoma with high anatomical complexity: a retrospective cohort study with propensity score matching method.
Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Perioperative and Oncological Outcomes of Partial Versus Radical Nephrectomy for Complex Renal Tumors (RENAL Score ≥ 7): Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Annals of surgical oncology · 2024Pooled it
- Bibliometric analysis of renal function preservation in robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: research trends, functional outcomes, and CKD-related perspectives.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
- [Artificial intelligence-based holistic, individualized facial analysis in aesthetic medicine].Dermatologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Review
- Surgical Strategies in Renal Cancer: A Meta-analysis of Partial vs. Radical Nephrectomy Outcomes Across Tumor Stages.Qatar medical journal · 2025Review
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
backgroundNephron-sparing surgery (NSS) is widely applied for small renal masses. However, the indication of NSS in patients with localised renal cell carcinoma (RCC) with high anatomical complexity is controversial. Thus, we compare functional and oncological outcomes, and safety of NSS versus radical nephrectomy (RN) in patients with localised RCC with high anatomical complexity Radius, Exophytic/endophytic, Nearness, Anterior/posterior, Location. (R.E.N.A.L.) score ≥10.
methodsWe evaluated 575 patients with localised RCC that underwent NSS or RN at our centre between January 2013 and December 2018. Demographic characteristics, comorbidities, tumour data, surgery procedure, perioperative data and survival data were recorded. After propensity score matching, the variables were compared by binary paired logistic regression. The change in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was compared with covariance analysis adjusted for baseline value. Recurrence and survival were calculated using Kaplan-Meier curves with log-rank tests. P<0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.
resultsIn the matched group, NSS showed lower eGFR loss compared with the RN group (17.81 mL/min/1.73 m
conclusionNSS resulted in better preservation of renal function and oncological outcomes compared with RN, with acceptable complications. These findings could help improve clinical decision making for patients with localised RCC with high anatomical complexity. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ChiCTR2000040652.
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.